In re A.I.G. CA2/6

Filed 5/27/15 In re A.I.G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re A.I.G. et al., Persons Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B258555 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J069104, J069105, J069106, J069107, J069108) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY G. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

L.G. (Mother) and Anthony G. (Father) appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights to five children, A.I.G., A.D.G., D.G., L.G., and A.G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 They contend that Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and the California ICWA-related statutes (§ 224 et seq.). HSA cured the ICWA notice defect while the appeal was pending. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and Father have five children together. Mother also has two older children who previously became dependents of the juvenile court and with whom she did not reunify. In November 2012, HSA detained Mother and Father's five children and filed a juvenile dependency petition for each child based on failure to protect the children. (§ 300, subd. (b).) HSA alleged that Mother and Father were chronically homeless, did not provide shelter or clothing for the children, and were living in unfit and unsanitary conditions. HSA interviewed Father on November 8, 2012, and interviewed the paternal grandmother on November 12 concerning Indian ancestry. Based on those interviews, HSA reported in the petitions that the children may be members of the Hopi or Navajo Indian tribes. On November 15, Father filed a parental notification of Indian status form (Form ICWA-020) in which he reported that he may have Navajo or Chumash ancestry. Mother filed the same form and reported that she may have Indian ancestry, but identified the tribe(s) as "unknown." On November 19, 2012, HSA filed notices pursuant to ICWA. HSA identified the Navajo and Chumash as Father's possible ancestral tribes. It reported the source of this information to be interviews with Father and Mother on November 14. It did not refer to the November 8 and 12 interviews and did not identify the paternal grandmother as a source of information. It did not identify the Hopi as a possible ancestral tribe. It did not include Mother's maiden name. It reported that maternal grandmother had one-eighth and maternal great-grandfather had one-quarter Indian heritage of an unknown tribe. HSA served the ICWA notice on Mother, Father, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the Bureau), the Navajo Nation, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the Ramah Navajo School Board, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. It did not serve the Hopi tribe.