In re P.F. CA2/8
Filed 2/9/22 In re P.F. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 P.F., a Person Coming B312294 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05716A DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ The mother appeals an order terminating parental rights over her daughter, P.F. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (the Act). State law requires the Department initially to ask extended family members whether a child is or may be an Indian child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b).) The Department spoke to several maternal relatives but failed to make this initial inquiry. We conditionally reverse the termination order and remand with directions to comply with the Act. Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. I On September 4, 2019, the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Most of the allegations involved substance abuse: when P.F. was born, she tested positive for opiates; the mother abused opiates and methamphetamine; and the father abused methamphetamine, had a criminal history involving drug possession and driving under the influence of alcohol, and had mental health issues. On September 1, 2019, the mother said her family did not have Indian ancestry. The father filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form indicating he had no known Indian ancestry.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)