In re A.R. CA2/8

Filed 3/30/22 In re A.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.R., A Person Coming B314282 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02557A) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. **********

Father E.R. appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional order concerning his son, A.R., arguing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) made an inadequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On May 27, 2021, A.R. was detained from mother and father and placed with maternal uncle and his wife. The record does not show that maternal uncle was asked whether his family had Indian ancestry. At the detention hearing on June 2, 2021, mother and father filed parental notification of Indian status forms (ICWA–020) denying that they, A.R., or any lineal ancestor “is” or “may” be eligible for tribal membership. The court did not ask mother and father, who were present at the hearing, whether there was any reason to know A.R. was an Indian child. A Department report shows that mother and father again denied any Indian ancestry on June 30, 2021. At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court declared A.R. a dependent and removed him from mother and father. While this appeal was pending, the court returned A.R. to his parents’ custody. (We take judicial notice of the January 19, 2022 order on our own motion, and grant father’s request that we take judicial notice of another order that A.R. remained a dependent of the court.) Congress enacted ICWA “ ‘to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.’ ” (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 8.) Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 imposes on the juvenile court and the Department “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child . . . .” (Id., subd. (a).) “If a child is placed into the temporary custody of a county welfare department[, the department] has a duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian child[, including] asking the child, parents, . . . extended family