In re K.M. CA1/5

Filed 8/12/21 In re K.M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re K.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A162027 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, (Contra Costa County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. J1800804/J1800805) v. Brittany W., Defendant and Appellant.

Brittany W. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights as to her daughter, K.M., at the conclusion of a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26).1 She contends the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) and the court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., ICWA). We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issue on appeal. A. In August 2018, the Bureau filed a section 300 petition alleging mother failed to provide “basic necessities” for K.M., then seven years old. The petition averred Thomas M. was K.M.’s alleged father. Mother and Thomas are not married. The court detained K.M., declared her a dependent, and ordered reunification services for mother. Later, the court terminated mother’s reunification services. In December 2020, the court held a permanency planning hearing and terminated mother’s parental rights. B. Mother completed a parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020 form) stating “father” had possible “Blackfoot” ancestry through his paternal grandmother and great-grandmother. Mother denied Indian ancestry. The Bureau mailed an ICWA-020 form to Thomas at his last known address, but it was returned as undeliverable. At the November 2018 jurisdictional hearing, the court noted mother’s ICWA-020 form indicated Indian ancestry “on the paternal side of the family” and questioned whether the court could “make an ICWA finding.” Counsel for the Bureau responded: “I think what the mother is indicating [is] that [Thomas] has Indian heritage but she herself has none.” The court agreed. It determined mother was making “assumptions” about Thomas’s Indian ancestry and not her own “side of the family,” and noted “there’s no evidence” K.M. was an Indian child or that ICWA applied. Then the court asked whether anyone disputed that finding. Neither mother nor Thomas M. were present at the hearing. But all counsel—including mother’s counsel— responded, “No.” The court deemed ICWA inapplicable.