In re Sophia C. CA2/1
Filed 8/2/22 In re Sophia C. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
In re SOPHIA C., a Person Coming B318301 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP05104A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERIKA C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. Michelle E. Butler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________
Erika C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter Sophia C. She contends that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its duty of inquiry to determine whether there is a reason to believe or know that Sophia is an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Because Mother has failed to demonstrate that DCFS’s error was prejudicial, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1 On August 13, 2018, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition concerning Sophia under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 Attached to the petition was an ICWA-010 form dated August 10 in which DCFS indicated that it made inquiry, and that Sophia had no known Indian ancestry. The following day, the parents appeared in court at a detention hearing and filed Parental Notification of Indian Status forms (Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020 (rev. Jan. 1, 2008)). Both parents checked a box next to the statement: “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” On this basis, the court found that ICWA did not apply. According to a dependency investigator for the DCFS, both parents again denied having any Indian ancestry in May 2021. DCFS social workers spoke with several maternal relatives, but there is no indication that they asked any of them about
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)