In re M.H. CA2/8

Filed 5/13/22 In re M.H. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.H. et al., Persons Coming B313118 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP00653A-B) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.H. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant R.H. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.G. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Father R.H. and mother J.G. appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to daughters M.H. and T.H., 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 M.H. and T.H. were detained from mother and father after infant T.H. was taken to the hospital and doctors discovered numerous fractures in varying stages of healing, which were deemed suspicious for physical abuse. The petition states the children have no known Indian ancestry. At the February 4, 2020 detention hearing, mother and father filed parental notification of Indian status forms (ICWA–020) indicating “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” The juvenile court acknowledged that “[b]oth parents have indicated under penalty of perjury that they do not believe they have Native American ancestry. Based thereon, the court finds that the ICWA does not apply to these two children.” The minute order from the hearing recites that the “[p]arents are to keep the Department, their Attorney and the Court aware of any new information relating to possible ICWA status.” A similar warning is recited in boldface font on the ICWA–020 forms. The Department’s jurisdiction and disposition report reflects that mother once again denied any Indian ancestry on March 10, 2020. Mother reported that maternal grandmother is Filipino, and maternal grandfather is American and Filipino. Because father did not make himself available to communicate with any representative of the Department after the detention hearing, the Department had no further opportunity to ask him about his social history or ancestry. The Department contacted maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother, but the record does not reflect whether they were asked about any possible Indian ancestry.