In re B.C. CA2/4

Filed 5/21/24 In re B.C. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B.C., B331752

a Person Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP00355)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION E.P. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights with respect to his son, B.C.1 Father raises a single issue: whether the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) properly inquired into B.C.’s Indian ancestry, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related state law. We hold that the Department’s inquiry was incomplete. However, we conclude that the Department’s omission was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND B.C. was born in January 2022. The Department filed a dependency petition on behalf of B.C. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).2 The petition alleged that B.C. tested positive for amphetamines at birth, as did his mother, M.C. (mother), immediately prior to birth. The petition also alleged that father knew or should have known about mother’s substance use and failed to protect B.C. In the ICWA attachment to the petition, the Department indicated that it had questioned mother about the child’s Indian status. Mother denied that B.C. had Indian ancestry. The Department’s initial interview with mother revealed that she had one other child, 17 years old and living in the Philippines. Mother told the Department that she had no family other than her own mother and the other