In re T.G. CA4/1

Filed 9/29/23 In re T.G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re T.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D082163 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4648CD)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 L.B. (Mother) appeals from orders terminating parental rights to her children, T.G. and J.G. (Children), after a Welfare and Institutions Code

section 366.262 hearing. Mother contends that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and section 224.2. However, Mother has not shown that the Agency failed to inquire of any persons who qualify as “extended family member[s]” for purposes of ICWA. Section 224.2 imposes an “affirmative and continuing duty” upon the Agency and the juvenile court to inquire whether a child subject to juvenile dependency may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) Subdivision (b) of section 224.2 creates an expanded duty of initial inquiry that requires the Agency to ask “extended family member[s]” whether the child may be an Indian child. ICWA defines “ ‘extended family member’ ” by “the law or custom of the Indian child’s tribe” or, absent such law or custom, as “a person who has reached the age of eighteen and who is the Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or stepparent.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); § 224.1, subd. (c) [“ ‘extended family member’ . . . defined as provided in [§] 1903” of ICWA].) There is currently a split in authority as to whether this duty only applies to a child who has been taken into temporary custody without a