In re A.N. CA2/4

Filed 5/2/23 In re A.N. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re A.N., a Person Coming Under B319059 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06259A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SABRINA M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sabrina M. John L. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ignacio N.

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

INTRODUCTION In this dependency case, appellants Sabrina M. (Mother) and Ignacio N. (Father) raise only one issue. They argue an inadequate investigation by respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) into their daughter A.N.’s status as an Indian child under California’s version of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires us to reverse the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights, as well as its denial of their Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions.1 We conclude that the ICWA error, although admitted, was harmless. We therefore affirm. Our Courts of Appeal are divided on how harmlessness is assessed in the context of an inadequate initial ICWA inquiry. That issue is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. While we wait for guidance from our higher court, we continue to apply the standard articulated by our colleagues in Division Two in In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 776, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578 (Dezi C.), for the reasons explained in that opinion.