Michelle A. v. Superior Court CA2/2

Filed 8/19/22 Michelle A. v. Superior Court CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

B313452 MICHELLE A., (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP08094A-B) Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Petition denied.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

****** Michelle A. (mother) petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. She seeks review of the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services at the 18-month review hearing. She argues that the order is defective because the juvenile court did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1900 et seq.) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b)). Although the juvenile court and Department may have committed error under ICWA, their noncompliance was harmless because there is no “reason to believe” that the further inquiry mother identifies would lead to a different result. (See In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 779 (Dezi C.).) We deny the petition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Family Mother has two children with her estranged husband Henry A. (father)—Travis A. (born August 2007), and Ethan A. (born April 2010).