In re D.D. CA2/8

Filed 12/8/22 In re D.D. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.D. et al., Persons Coming B319941 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Los Angeles County AND FAMILY SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP02204A-B

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Dodd, 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. **********

Father M.D. appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his sons D.D. and L.D. Their mother, J.D., is not a party to this appeal. Father’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 the boys’ relevant ancestry by failing to inquire with extended family members with whom the Department had contact. We affirm. BACKGROUND 1. Overview of Proceedings This dependency proceeding began in 2018, nearly five years ago, when the boys were aged seven and four. At the time of the petition, the boys lived in and out of motels with father and his girlfriend. Father had been caring for the boys for nearly two years after a 2016 referral to the Department based on mother’s neglect was resolved by father taking the children from mother’s home and agreeing to pursue custody in family court. In July 2018, the juvenile court ordered the boys removed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The court also ordered reunification services. Removal was based on allegations that father was failing to provide for the boys’ basic needs; that father and the girlfriend were using drugs while caring for the boys; and that father and the girlfriend had engaged in domestic violence in the boys’ presence. Father appealed this order and we affirmed. (In re L.D. (Apr. 30, 2019, B291401) [nonpub. opn.].) In September 2019, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and scheduled a permanency planning