In re C.S. CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 19, 2022 No. B318139Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Department of Children and Family Services was not required to investigate the alleged father's claimed Indian ancestry because he did not qualify as a "parent" under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as he had not acknowledged or established paternity under state or federal law.

Issues

Whether the Department of Children and Family Services failed to adequately investigate the alleged father's Indian ancestry under ICWA.
Whether an alleged father who has not established paternity under state law qualifies as a "parent" for purposes of ICWA inquiry requirements.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute does not specify how paternity may be “acknowledged or established” for purposes of applying ICWA”

“Kenneth did not acknowledge or establish paternity in any of the ways prescribed by statute.”

“Because Mother has denied that she has Indian ancestry and because she makes no claim of error as to the investigation of her own ancestry, ICWA can apply only through C.S.’s father.”

Filed 8/19/22 In re C.S. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re C.S., a Person Coming Under the B318139 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00495A) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ANDREA S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Commissioner. Affirmed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Andrea S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her son, C.S. Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to adequately investigate the possible Indian ancestry of alleged father Kenneth R. in the manner required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law. We find no error, and thus we will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Petition and detention; mother’s failure to reunify. C.S. was born in July 2019 and was detained and placed in foster care when he was five days old. On July 23, 2019, DCFS filed a petition alleging that C.S. was a juvenile court dependent pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300, subdivision (b) because mother had a history of substance abuse, was a current abuser of marijuana, and had a history of mental and emotional problems, including diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, depression, disorganized thoughts, paranoia, and auditory and visual hallucinations. On September 30, 2019, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and declared C.S. a juvenile court dependent. The court ordered C.S. removed from mother and granted mother reunification services and monitored visits.

In re C.S. CA2/3

AI Brief

ANDREA S.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

EGERTON, J.

AI Brief