In re J.C. CA2/8

Filed 3/23/22 In re J.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.C., a Person Coming Under B314324 the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01721A DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESSE C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed. William Hook, 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.

____________________ A father appeals an order terminating parental rights over his daughter, J.C. He challenges, not the merits of the termination decision, but the juvenile court’s earlier determination the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (the Act) does not apply. We affirm. The father argues both the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services failed to discharge their initial duties of inquiry under the Act and related California law. Citing Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), he argues the Department learned of extended family members on his side yet erred by not asking them about the child’s possible Indian heritage. The father’s arguments fail. We review findings under the Act for substantial evidence. (In re Josiah T. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 388, 401 (Josiah T.).) Substantial evidence supports findings that the Act did not apply and that the duty of inquiry was met here. The father has been in the dependency system before. He has, in his counsel’s words, “lost previous children” in such proceedings. In a 2018 proceeding, the juvenile court found no reason to know the Act applied as to the father. The father does not dispute this. He recognizes the court already found the Act “did not apply regarding Jesse [the father] in one of his previous dependency cases regarding [J.C.’s] half- sibling.” This is significant. (See Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 401 [where the juvenile court finds the Act does not apply, the finding implies social workers fulfilled their duty of inquiry].)