In re A.J. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jan 9, 2024 No. B329814Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Department of Children and Family Services conducted a sufficient inquiry into the children's potential Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act, as the Department interviewed available relatives who all denied such ancestry and was not required to conduct an exhaustive search for additional relatives.

Issues

Did the juvenile court err in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act inapplicable without evidence that the Department made a meaningful effort to locate and interview maternal extended relatives?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Department had the names of mother’s siblings, but no contact information. Mother and other relatives did not provide any contact information for mother’s siblings when asked. Further investigation to locate these or additional extended relatives was not required.”

Filed 1/9/24 In re A.J. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re A.J. et al., Persons Coming B329814 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 21CCJP01901B-E)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

K.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Linda Sun, Judge. Affirmed. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother appeals from the April 4, 2023 order terminating parental rights to four of her children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure compliance with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns four of mother’s children: twins born in 2009, a son born in 2010, and a daughter born in 2011.2 We limit our discussion to the facts relevant to the sufficiency of the ICWA inquiry efforts taken by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). Mother first denied that the children had any Indian ancestry in an April 2021 interview. At an April 29, 2021 detention hearing, the court noted mother had filed an ICWA-020 form also denying any Indian ancestry. Father also denied any Indian ancestry. According to a June 2021 Department report, mother told the Department she was living with one of her brothers, and she was close with two other siblings in California. Mother’s parents

In re A.J. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief