In re Travis A. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 6, 2022 No. B313452AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Department's failure to conduct a complete initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was harmless error because there was no reason to believe the children were Indian children.

Issues

Whether the Department's failure to interview extended family members regarding Indian ancestry constitutes reversible error under ICWA.
Whether the juvenile court's ICWA noncompliance is prejudicial when the record contains no evidence suggesting the children may be Indian children.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

“In Dezi C., we recently held that a deficiency in the discharge of ICWA’s initial duty of inquiry is prejudicial only if the juvenile court record or evidence proffered by the appealing party on appeal indicates “a reason to believe” that the child may be an Indian child.”

Filed 9/6/22 In re Travis A. CA2/2 Opinion on rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re TRAVIS A. et al., Persons B313452 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Super. Court Law. Ct. No. 19CCJP08094A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MICHELLE A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Appellant Michelle A. (mother) appeals 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.).) 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). II. The Dependency Proceedings, Generally In November 2019, mother had allowed the maternal grandparents to have custody of Travis and Ethan. Father was living separately in Nevada. When mother came to visit the kids, she left methamphetamine and a “meth pipe” at their house and

In re Travis A. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

MICHELLE A.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief