In re Matthias A. CA2/1

Filed 2/24/15 In re Matthias A. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re MATTHIAS A. et al., Persons B257192 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK99046)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JACQUELINE D. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. ______ Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jacqueline D. Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mathew A. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother Jacqueline D. and father Mathew A. appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental right as to their two young sons. Without contesting the merits of the termination, father contends that the order should be conditionally reversed because the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not give notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as directed by the court. Mother joins in father’s argument. We conclude that any deficiency in notice does not warrant a conditional reversal. We, therefore, affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 17, 2013, DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1, as to Matthias A., then age two, and Deonte A., then age one, against mother and father. DCFS asked mother whether the children had any Indian ancestry and mother replied that neither she nor father has “any Native American heritage.” Mother also filled out the Parental Notification of Indian Status form and checked the box indicating, “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” Mother appeared at the detention hearing, but father did not. The juvenile court detained the children, found father as the presumed father and determined that ICWA did not apply. Several weeks later, on May 8, 2013, a Parental Notification of Indian Status form was filed on behalf of father. Father did not sign or date the form. The box stating “I am or may be a member of, or eligible for membership in, a federally recognized Indian tribe” is checked, and the phrase “Cherokee & Apache—MGM is full blooded Apache” is written below the box. That same day, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to “[g]ive notice of proceeding to the following persons for next hearing: ICWA NOTICES AS TO THE FATHER/PAT. GRANDMOTHER.”2 At the adjudication hearing, on July 15, 2013, mother and father waived their trial rights and submitted on the petition. The juvenile court found the children dependents of