In re Joseph E. CA2/5

Filed 1/13/16 In re Joseph E. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re JOSEPH E., JR., a Person Coming B266304 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK11212)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH E., SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The lone contention in this appeal is that the dependency court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We hold that the information provided to the court is insufficient, as a matter of law, to trigger the ICWA’s notice requirement.

RELEVENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

The dependency court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition alleging that Joseph, Jr. (the child) was at risk of harm due to physical abuse inflicted by Joseph, Sr. (father).2 Father appeals from an order sustaining the section 300 petition and removing the child from father’s custody. After the child was initially detained, father told the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) on May 6, 2015,3 that he had no Indian heritage, and signed an ICWA document to that effect. At a detention hearing on May 11, father stated “he has possible American Indian heritage. Unknown tribe.” On a form filed the same day, father stated that a paternal great-grandfather “may have ancestry” but father “doesn’t know anything else & doesn’t know who would know more.” The dependency court found there was no reason to know the child was an Indian child and did not order the Department to send ICWA notices. Father was ordered to