In re A.R. CA2/1

Filed 10/31/23 In re A.R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.R., et al., a Person Coming B328795 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02081A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EILEEN M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Eileen M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, A.R. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to fulfill its duties under state law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) by neglecting to interview six extended family members concerning A.R.’s possible Indian1 heritage. Because we conclude that any error by DCFS in failing to interview these family members was harmless, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY2 A. Overview Mother and J.R. (Father) share one child, A.R. (age 3 years). In 2014, the juvenile court sustained a DCFS petition for two of A.R.’s six maternal half siblings, due in part to Mother’s methamphetamine use. Mother failed to reunify with these children. On April 13, 2020, DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code3 section 300 petition alleging, inter alia, that Mother’s substance abuse—including her alleged use of methamphetamine during her pregnancy—placed then one-month-old A.R. at risk of serious physical harm. The petition alleged further that Father failed to

1 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1 (Benjamin M.).) 2 As Mother’s sole argument on appeal concerns the duties of inquiry and notice imposed by ICWA and related California law, we limit our factual and procedural summary accordingly. 3 All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.