In re C.Z. CA2/4

Filed 2/13/24 In re C.Z. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.Z. et al., B326645

Persons Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP00986-EF)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Commissioner. Dismissed. Marissa Coffey, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION E.Z. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order. Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the initial inquiry and notice requirements under ICWA. DCFS responds that “mother’s appeal should be dismissed because ICWA obligations are ongoing and can be raised and cured in the juvenile court.” Because a finding regarding the application of ICWA was neither made at the disposition hearing from which mother appeals, nor at any point earlier in the case, the sole claim on appeal is premature. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We recite only facts relevant to mother’s appeal. P.M. (father) and mother have two children together: C.S.Z. (born Sept. 2011) and C.Z. (born Jan. 2013). In a prior dependency case, maternal grandfather told a dependency investigator that maternal great, great grandmother (Alberta B.) had Indian heritage through the Blackfeet Indian tribe. Maternal grandfather provided the names of maternal great grandparents. The investigator indicated that previous minute orders did “not indicate ICWA findings.” On August 31, 2022, DCFS filed the current dependency petition on behalf of the children, which included an Indian child inquiry attachment. This attachment indicated mother was asked about any Indian heritage on July 27, 2022. Mother reported she may have Indian ancestry through