In re R.K. CA2/5

Filed 3/29/22 In re R.K. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.K., a Person Coming Under B310579, B311477 the Juvenile Law. (Los Angeles County ___________________________________ Super. Ct. No. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 19LJJP00325A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.J. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Judge Pro Tempore. Dismissed. Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.J.

Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.K. Amir Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.

2

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over four-month-old R.K. (Minor) when her parents, M.J. (Mother) and E.K. (Father), pled no contest to allegations that Minor was endangered by her parents’ history of substance abuse and domestic violence, and by Mother’s mental health issues. The court found Minor was not an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law. At a later contested review hearing, the juvenile court found Minor’s return to Father’s care would be detrimental and released Minor into Mother’s custody. Father appealed and argued, among other things, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to satisfy its inquiry and notice obligations under ICWA. While Father’s appeal in case number B308976 was pending in this court, the Department filed a supplemental petition in the juvenile court alleging Mother failed to comply with orders that she participate in random drug testing and take her psychotropic medication. In its supporting reports, the Department reminded the juvenile court of its earlier finding that ICWA did not apply and did not disclose any further ICWA- related inquiries. The juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition and removed Minor from her parents in January 2021. Mother and Father appealed separately and we consolidated the proceedings for briefing, argument, and decision. In their opening briefs, the only argument Mother and Father presented (that is relevant for our purposes now) is the argument that the juvenile court’s findings and orders should be reversed because the court’s earlier ICWA finding was not supported by substantial evidence.