In re A.R. CA2/4

Filed 5/24/23 In re A.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.R., a Person Coming B316221 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 20CCJP01563, 20CCJP01563A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Father A.R. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services with his son, A. He contends the matter must be remanded for further proceedings because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) (ICWA). DCFS agrees, as do we, that the legal requirements imposed under ICWA were not satisfied. Accordingly, we remand the matter solely to ensure compliance with ICWA and related state statutes. The remainder of the order is conditionally affirmed. BACKGROUND Because the sole issue on appeal is compliance with ICWA, we limit our summary of the facts to those relevant to that issue except as necessary for context. A. was born in September 2019. In March 2020, DCFS filed a dependency petition on behalf of A. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).1 The

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

petition alleged that A. was at risk of harm due to violent altercations between father and A.’s mother, S.M., while they were caring for A., as well as mother’s abuse of marijuana.2 A. was detained from both parents and placed with maternal grandmother. In the Indian Child Inquiry Attachment (ICWA-010(A)), DCFS checked the box indicating that A. “may have Indian ancestry.” Father completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020) on March 20, 2020. He checked the box stating, “The child is or may be a member of, or eligible for membership in, a federally recognized Indian tribe.” He identified Cherokee as a possible tribe and listed paternal great- grandmother as the individual with potential heritage, but provided no further details. Mother also completed the same form, indicating that she had no Indian ancestry as far as she knew. At the detention hearing in March 2020, the court found father to be A.’s presumed father. The court asked father to confirm his statement that paternal great-grandmother “may have Cherokee in her background”; father stated that was correct. The court continued, “I will need the department to conduct further investigation and follow up and potentially send notices - - I will need the department to send notices as such.” Father also informed the court that paternal great-grandmother was deceased. The court ordered DCFS to “ask for any potential collaterals to provide any information.” The court found it had no reason to believe ICWA applied with respect to mother. According to the April 2020 jurisdiction/disposition report, father said he had heard through his family that they might have