In re A.P. CA2/8

Filed 5/22/14 In re A.P. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re A.P., Person Coming Under the Juvenile B251593 Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT Super. Ct. No. CK89723) OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Y.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tony L. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________

Mother, Y.A., appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her son, A.P. She contends the Department of Children and Family Services failed to inquire into whether A.P.’s father, R.P., had any Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We find that because father was merely an alleged father, inquiry into father’s Indian heritage under ICWA was not required. BACKGROUND Because this appeal concerns only whether the requirements of ICWA were satisfied, we will limit our factual summary to those facts relevant to ICWA. On September 14, 2011, then 15-month-old A.P. was detained by the Department after mother was arrested for physically abusing him in a thrift store in Covina. Mother’s two older children were in a guardianship with their maternal grandmother because of mother’s drug use. During an interview with a Department social worker and a Sheriff’s detective, mother identified R.P. as A.P.’s father, but indicated that father “is not involved in [A.P.’s] life and does not provide . . . any financial support.” When mother was seven months pregnant with A.P., she and father were arrested (mother for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and father for possessing a controlled substance and violating his parole). At the time of A.P.’s detention, father was in custody at the West Valley Detention Center. Father was being held, without bail, on a U.S. Marshall’s hold. On September 19, 2011, mother filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status, indicating that she had no Indian ancestry. She also completed a Parentage Questionnaire, identifying father as A.P.’s father, but indicating that he was not present for A.P.’s birth, did not sign A.P.’s birth certificate, that he had not held himself out as A.P.’s parent, that no paternity testing had been completed, and that there were no child support or family law orders establishing father’s paternity. Accordingly, at the September 19, 2011 detention hearing, the trial court found father to be only an alleged father, and that ICWA did not apply to mother. The Department’s investigation revealed other children of father had been declared dependents of the court. A February 28, 2005 sustained petition found that