In re E.R. CA2/8

Filed 1/10/23 In re E.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.R., a Person Coming B317373 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP00279C LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MONICA D., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ashley Price, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Mother Monica D. appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to son E.R. (born October 2018 and referred to herein as Noah). She does not challenge the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her rights. Mother’s contention is that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b)1 in that DCFS failed to ask available extended family members whether Noah is an “Indian child” within the meaning of section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) She also faults the juvenile court for not personally inquiring of the parents at their initial appearances about possible Indian ancestry. We find DCFS erred in failing to question extended family members despite having contact with a paternal grandparent and uncle and maternal grandmother and aunts. Although both parents had filled out paperwork indicating no knowledge of Indian ancestry, we find the juvenile court erred in not personally inquiring of them at their initial appearances. However, we conclude, as explained below, the error was harmless because Noah’s designated adoptive parent was his paternal uncle. BACKGROUND On January 15, 2019, when Noah was three months old, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging Mother left Noah’s older half-siblings, ages nine and seven, with their paternal grandmother without a plan for the children’s ongoing care and supervision. At the time Mother had disappeared with Noah and