In re M.A. CA2/8

Filed 12/7/22 In re M.A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.A., a Person Coming B316262 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Los Angeles County AND FAMILY SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP03224A

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DIANA P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. **********

Mother Diana P. appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child, M.A. M.A.’s presumed father, Jose A., is not a party to this appeal. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) made an inadequate initial inquiry concerning M.A.’s relevant ancestry by failing to discuss the topic with M.A.’s grandmothers with whom the Department had contact. We affirm. BACKGROUND 1. Overview of Proceedings This dependency proceeding began in June 2020, two and a half years ago, when M.A. was a newborn. He was detained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), because he and mother both tested positive for marijuana and amphetamines at his birth and father knew of mother’s prenatal drug use but failed to prevent it. M.A. was immediately placed with his paternal grandmother. The court ordered M.A. removed from the parents and denied reunification services to father, who was largely absent from the process. It conditionally ordered mother reunification services if she contacted the Department, which she later did, and services were provided. However, mother failed to reunify with M.A. The court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption by paternal aunt and her husband as M.A.’s permanent plan. 2. Facts Relevant to ICWA Inquiry The Department’s initial contact with parents was in person in June 2020 at the hospital following M.A.’s birth. The