In re R.W. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal May 20, 2022 No. B314287Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the Department of Children and Family Services failed to fulfill its initial duty of inquiry under ICWA by not questioning all available extended family members, the error was harmless because there was no reason to believe the child had Indian ancestry.

Issues

Whether the Department of Children and Family Services fulfilled its initial duty of inquiry regarding the child's Indian ancestry under ICWA.
Whether the failure to inquire of certain extended family members constitutes prejudicial error requiring reversal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with Mother’s contention that DCFS had an obligation under section 224.2, subdivision (b) to inquire of extended family members about Indian ancestry.”

“However, we find DCFS’s imperfect initial inquiry harmless.”

“We conclude DCFS’s failure to inquire further after both parents and maternal grandfather denied Indian ancestry was harmless as it was not likely to bear meaningfully upon R.W.’s status as an Indian child.”

Filed 5/20/22 In re R.W. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.W., a Person Coming B314287 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK55230D) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

F.P., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

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

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her daughter, R.W. On appeal, Mother does not contest the merits of the court’s adjudication; instead, her sole contention is that reversal is warranted because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 224 et seq.) do not apply to R.W. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because compliance with ICWA is the sole basis for Mother’s appeal, we recite only those facts pertinent to her claim. On June 30, 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging physical and emotional abuse and general neglect of Mother’s youngest child, R.W., then two years old. This was not Mother’s first experience with the dependency court system. Mother had three older children who were declared dependents of the juvenile court. After Mother failed to comply with her family reunification plan, the juvenile court terminated her parental rights as to those three children. On July 28, 2017, DCFS filed a section 300 petition due to father’s violent altercations with maternal relatives and mother’s history of substance abuse. On November 16, 2017, a first amended petition was filed. It included an allegation that

In re R.W. CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief