In re T.J. CA2/8

Filed 3/21/23 In re T.J. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.J., a Person Coming B322929 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK38360F LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.J., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robin Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally affirmed. Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother A.J. appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her child T.J. She does not challenge the merits of the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her rights. Mother’s contention is that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not comply with its further duty of inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 224.2, subdivision (b), in that DCFS failed to contact the Cherokee tribe to ascertain whether the child had Indian ancestry within the meaning of section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We find DCFS erred in failing to contact the tribe after Mother indicated she believed she had Cherokee ancestry. (No fathers or paternal relatives are involved in this case as the identity of the father remains unknown.) BACKGROUND On December 20, 2016, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging Mother had shoplifted in the presence of her children and engaged in a police pursuit with the children in the vehicle. It further alleged mother’s history of substance abuse and prior child welfare history. The petition named T.J. and a sibling, but only T.J. is the subject of this appeal. After several years of hearings and different proposed permanent plans, on August 9, 2022, the court found no exception to adoption applied, terminated Mother’s parental rights, and ordered adoption by T.J.’s maternal cousin as her permanent plan.