Filed 7/9/26 In re Aaron F. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re Aaron F. et al., Persons B350175
Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 22LJJP00028B–C)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Marissa M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Jennifer W. Baronoff, Commissioner.
Affirmed.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
**********
Marissa M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to her two minor children,
arguing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) failed to conduct and document an
adequate inquiry into the minors’ possible Indian ancestry under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.21 as required by
California’s Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Raising no other
issue on appeal, Mother contends a conditional reversal is
warranted to allow for proper compliance with ICWA.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother gave birth to An.F. in April 2023. After receiving a
referral that An.F. exhibited withdrawal symptoms at birth and
had a positive toxicology test for fentanyl, marijuana, and
methadone, DCFS filed a petition under section 300 alleging
jurisdiction over An.F. and her four-year-old sibling, Aaron, based
on Mother’s substance abuse and domestic violence issues
between Mother and Joshua F. (Father). (§ 300, subds. (a), (b) &
(j).) Mother and Father had just concluded a prior proceeding
with DCFS in September 2022 involving Aaron, based on
allegations of domestic violence. That proceeding terminated
with an order granting Mother sole physical and legal custody of
Aaron, and monitored visitation for Father.
On May 15, 2023, Aaron and An.F. were detained and
placed in shelter care. The juvenile court subsequently sustained
the section 300 petition and declared both children dependents of
the court. The court ordered suitable placement, granting DCFS
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
discretion to make a relative placement upon proper approval.
Reunification services and drug testing were ordered for Mother
and Father, along with counseling and monitored visitation in
the case plans for each parent.
In March 2024, the children were placed with Frances S.,
a paternal great aunt.
After more than 18 months of reunification services, the
permanency review hearing was held on February 11, 2025.
The juvenile court found that return of the children to Mother
and Father would create a substantial risk of detriment to their
physical or emotional well-being, and terminated reunification
services for both parents. The court set a permanency planning
hearing for August 11, 2025. The court encouraged Mother and
Father to continue to work on their respective issues, and to
discuss the possibility of filing a section 388 petition with their
attorneys.
1. Facts and proceedings related to ICWA
On Mother’s Parental Notification of Indian Status form,
she reported her maternal grandmother may have been a
member of a Navajo tribe in New Mexico. Mother had no further
information. Father signed a Parental Notification of Indian
Status form denying Indian ancestry.
At the detention hearing on May 15, 2023, Amia G.,
maternal grandmother, attended with Mother and told the court
there was Navajo ancestry in her family from the “New Mexico
area.” Maternal grandmother said maternal great grandmother,
who was now deceased, had lived on a reservation as a child, but
she had no further information. The court ordered DCFS to
investigate.
3
In June 2023, after speaking with various extended family
members, DCFS prepared an ICWA-030 form for each child that
contained the following information:
On the maternal side of the family, the name, date of birth,
and place of birth were provided for Mother, maternal
grandmother, and Ernesto T., maternal grandfather. As to
Mother and maternal grandmother, it was reported they may
have Navajo ancestry, Pueblo of Zuni, “unknown locations.”
One maternal great grandmother was identified as “Nyla” with
various surnames, born on the Bread Springs Reservation, who
passed in 2014 in Lancaster, California. One maternal great
grandfather was identified as Charles B. with no Indian ancestry.
On the paternal side of the family, the name, date of birth,
and place of birth were provided for Father, Brenda M., paternal
grandmother, and Manuel F., paternal grandfather. As to Father
and paternal grandfather, it was reported they had possible
Navajo ancestry, noting “Navajo, Pueblo Isleta; New Mexico–See
Addendum [¶] Not enrolled at this time.” Both paternal great
grandmothers were identified and reported as deceased:
Helen G. with no known Indian ancestry, and Celine V., with a
place of birth in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and possible Indian
ancestry noted as “Navajo, Pueblo Isleta; New Mexico.” Both
paternal great grandfathers were also identified by name
(Ernie M. and Gregorio F.), with dates of birth, and places of
birth, neither of which had any known Indian ancestry.
In section 7c regarding whether any family members had
lived on tribal land, the information regarding maternal great
grandmother was repeated. She was identified as Irene S. (aka
Nyla) and the reservation was listed as the Bread Springs
Reservation in New Mexico. In section 7d regarding other
4
relatives, a paternal great, great grandmother was identified as
Priscilla V. with a connection to the Pueblo Isleta tribe, followed
by a reference to see the attached addendum.
All other boxes on the ICWA-030 form stated only:
“Unknown/Information Not Provided–See Addendum.”
The attached addendum summarized various conversations
with family members about the family’s Indian ancestry and
detailed some additional information.
On Mother’s side of the family, there was additional
information about maternal great grandmother Nyla, whose birth
name was Irene S. Maternal grandmother reported she spoke
with her aunt and learned that maternal great grandmother had
not only lived on the Bread Springs Reservation, but was also
born on the reservation and the family believed the reservation
was located somewhere in the “Gallup/Fort Defiance/Window
Rock” region of New Mexico. Mother reported that “Great Uncle
Benny,” the brother of Nyla, might have more information.
Multiple efforts to obtain followup information from Mother
about Uncle Benny were unsuccessful. Maternal grandmother
reported that Nyla and Uncle Benny were adopted. Maternal
grandmother also reported that her father, Paz G., may have
been born in New Mexico with a possible birth date of April 22,
1957. Maternal grandmother had no contact with her father, and
therefore had no other information to share about him.
On father’s side of the family, DCFS documented several
calls to paternal grandmother that were not returned. However,
paternal grandfather told DCFS the only possible Indian heritage
in his family was through paternal great grandmother, who
passed away in 2015 in Canyon Country, California, and that her
middle name was Helen. Paternal grandfather also identified his
5
maternal grandfather as Manuel V., who was born in 1899 and
passed away in either 1982 or 1983 in Los Angeles, California.
Paternal grandfather reported having an “Uncle Tom” who
purportedly received “financial compensation” from a tribe, but
he had no other information and did not have contact with other
family members to verify. He told the social worker he would
look to see if he had any other information. In a followup call, he
reported he could find no contact information for his Uncle Tom.
Paternal grandfather said he knew of no family members who
had lived on a reservation, or had gone to an Indian school or
medical clinic. He said his sister, Celina F., might have
information and he provided her phone number. The social
worker reported that Celina F. confirmed some of the information
provided by paternal grandfather, and also reported that Manuel
V., paternal great, great grandfather, was part Navajo, and that
Priscilla V., paternal great, great grandmother, was connected to
the Pueblo Isleta tribe and her heritage had been confirmed by a
DNA test.
The ICWA notices with an attached addendum were mailed
on June 26, 2023, to Mother, Father, the regional Bureau of
Indian Affairs in Sacramento, California, the Department of the
Interior in Washington D.C., California Office of Tribal Affairs,
the Colorado River Indian Tribes in Parker, Arizona, Navajo
Children and Family Services in St. Michaels, Arizona, Ramah
Navajo School Board, Inc., in Pine Hill, New Mexico, Pueblo of
Zuni in Zuni, New Mexico, and Pueblo of Isleta in Isleta, New
Mexico. Certified receipts confirmed the ICWA forms were
received by all recipients between June 30, 2023, and July 10,
2023.
6
Thereafter, the Ramah Navajo School Board advised DCFS
by letter that ICWA inquiries were handled by the Navajo Nation
and that they had forwarded the ICWA forms to them for review.
The Navajo Nation initially responded on August 2, 2023, that it
would take time to review its records. In a followup letter dated
October 25, 2023, Navajo Nation reported that the children were
not eligible for enrollment. Pueblo of Isleta Social Services
responded on July 17, 2023, that the children were not listed
members and did not have an application pending. A separate
response from the Pueblo of Isleta dated July 11, 2023, explained
that the children did not meet the standard for membership (one-
quarter Isleta blood) and therefore were deemed ineligible. On
August 2, 2023, the Zuni Tribe in New Mexico likewise responded
the children were not eligible for membership because tribal
eligibility required a minimum of one-quarter Zuni Indian blood.
The Colorado River Indian Tribes did not respond until
February 18, 2025. Like the other tribes, it determined the
children were not eligible for membership. A second letter on
May 20, 2025, relayed the same ineligibility determination.
Throughout 2024, DCFS continued to reach out to extended
family members to investigate the family’s possible Indian
heritage. Numerous phone calls to parents and grandparents
were made attempting to discern if any further ancestry
information or contact information had been discovered. More
often than not, DCFS did not receive return phone calls,
including efforts to reach Joseph F., a paternal uncle.
On February 13, 2024, paternal great aunt, Frances S., told
a social worker she believed her family had possible Yaqui
ancestry but she had no other information. On April 4, 2024,
Frances S., who had recently become the children’s caregiver,
7
repeated this belief. However, when asked for other information
to verify her belief, she said, “My parents are dead; my
grandparents are dead; everybody is gone.” She told the social
worker her eldest sister might have more information, but she
declined to give her sister’s contact information to DCFS.
Instead, she said she would talk to her sister and report back to
DCFS if she had any additional information.
In July 2024 and December 2024, DCFS reported it had
obtained no new information on the family’s Indian ancestry.
At the status review hearing on January 15, 2025, paternal
grandmother was present. The court asked her whether she had
any information on the family’s Indian heritage. Paternal
grandmother said she recalled her mother and grandmother
mentioning possible ancestry, but she had “no idea” about any
particular tribe or any further information. When asked whether
she had heard the family had possible Yaqui heritage, she said “I
have no idea.” She suggested her aunt, Patricia A., might know
something and gave her phone number to the social worker. The
court ordered DCFS to attempt contact with Patricia A.
DCFS subsequently reported a social worker spoke with
Patricia A. on January 30, 2025. Patricia said she had no specific
knowledge of any Indian heritage, but she did recall her mother
mentioning possible Navajo ancestry, not Yaqui. She had no
other information, just a general recollection of her mother
saying so.
At the section 366.22 hearing on February 11, 2025, the
juvenile court indicated that any tribe that had not responded
should be renoticed. Counsel for DCFS said it believed two tribes
may not have responded yet but had received notices: Colorado
River Indian Tribes and Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
8
The court responded, “[s]o to the extent that they still have not
received responses from those tribes, the Department a [sic] does
need to renotice them.”
DCFS subsequently reported that all tribes that had been
sent ICWA forms had responded the children were not eligible for
enrollment.
On June 11, 2025, the juvenile court found it had no reason
to know or believe that ICWA applied.
2. Order terminating parental rights
In the section 366.26 report, DCFS reported that the
minors remained in the home of paternal great aunt Frances S.
DCFS recommended adoption by paternal great aunt as the
permanent plan for both children.
At the contested hearing on October 22, 2025, the juvenile
court heard testimony and argument on the parental benefit
exception to adoption. The court found the exception did not
apply, and terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights to
Aaron and An.F. Adoption was identified as the permanent plan,
with paternal great aunt identified as the prospective adoptive
parent.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
California’s ICWA, and the federal legislation on which it is
based (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), “are unique statutory schemes
that are intended to protect Native American heritage, cultural
connections between tribes and children of Native American
ancestry, the best interests of Indian children, and the stability
and security of Indian tribes and families.” (In re Dezi C. (2024)
16 Cal.5th 1112, 1125 (Dezi C.).) In order to effectuate these
goals, ICWA imposes a duty of inquiry on DCFS to determine
9
whether each child that comes under its jurisdiction is or may be
an Indian child, and that duty is ongoing throughout the course
of the dependency proceeding. (Id. at pp. 1131–1132; see also
§ 224.2, subd. (a) [county welfare agencies have “an affirmative
and continuing duty to inquire” whether dependent minor “is or
may be an Indian child”].)
In her sole contention on appeal, Mother argues that DCFS
failed to conduct and document an adequate ICWA inquiry. She
says the ICWA forms provided to the tribes were deficient and
confusing, and that DCFS either failed to comply with the court’s
order to renotify certain tribes, or it did not properly document
those efforts. Mother says the record therefore does not support
the finding by the juvenile court that ICWA did not apply, and
the order terminating parental rights must be conditionally
reversed for proper compliance with ICWA in accordance with
Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th 1112. We are not persuaded.
Dezi C. instructs that “the juvenile court’s fact-specific
determination that an [ICWA] inquiry is adequate, proper, and
duly diligent is ‘a quintessentially discretionary function’
[citation] subject to a deferential standard of review. [Citations.]
‘ “On a well-developed record, the court has relatively broad
discretion to determine whether the agency’s inquiry was proper,
adequate, and duly diligent on the specific facts of the case.” ’ ”
(Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141; accord, In re K.L. (2026)
120 Cal.App.5th 989, 995.)
Here, during its investigation, DCFS spoke to numerous
family members to attempt to ferret out relevant information
bearing on whether Aaron and An.F. had Indian ancestry. They
spoke with the parents, the maternal grandparents, the paternal
grandparents, two paternal great aunts, and one paternal great,
10
great aunt. Additional extended family members were contacted,
and either DCFS did not receive replies, or the contact was made
by family members because those individuals did not want their
contact information provided to DCFS. Other extended family
members could not be reached because the family had no contact
with them, or they were deceased.
DCFS’s efforts in reaching out to extended family members
was more than sufficient. In discharging its duty to inquire,
DCFS was not required to independently find “ ‘unknown
relatives and others who have an interest in the child, merely to
make reasonable inquiries. The operative concept is those people
who are reasonably available to help the agency with its
investigation into whether the child has any potential Indian
ancestry should be asked.’ ” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at
p. 1140; accord, In re K.L., supra, 120 Cal.App.5th at p. 996
[DCFS not required to track down relatives not involved in the
dependency proceeding, or to “hound” family members who say
they will provide information, or “ ‘cast about’ for investigative
leads”]; In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 711, 720.)
Mother does not argue that DCFS failed to diligently
attempt to speak with extended family members. Rather, Mother
says the ICWA forms forwarded to the tribes were materially
misleading and deficient. Indeed, Mother urges us to find they
were the equivalent of burying the truth.
Mother points to two purported omissions. She says the
ICWA-030 forms failed to identify maternal great grandfather
Paz G., noting instead only “Unknown/Information Not Provided–
See Addendum.” Mother says the information about Paz G. was
buried in the addendum, namely the information from maternal
grandmother that Paz G., with whom she had no contact, may
11
have been born in New Mexico and his birthdate may have been
“04/22/1957(?).” Mother also points to the failure to identify
paternal great, great grandfather Manuel V. in the “other
relative” section of the ICWA form. Mother says any tribe would
not bother looking at the addendum for additional relatives
because section 7d only mentioned paternal great, great
grandmother Priscilla V.
First, we disagree with Mother’s characterization of the
ICWA forms regarding Manuel V. All of the known information
about paternal great, great grandfather Manuel V. was provided
in the addendum attached to the ICWA forms, even if his name
was not listed in the forms. The addendum was not difficult or
time-consuming to read, taking little more than a couple of
minutes to review for any additional information supplementing
the information stated in the form. Consequently, we do not
agree the forms and addendum were materially misleading
regarding Manuel V. Our review is “not a mechanistic analysis”
of statutory compliance. (In re H.B., supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at
p. 720.) We presume the tribes reasonably review the
information provided to them, and the forms presented here did
not require any extraordinary effort to glean the relevant
information.
Second, even assuming it was error for DCFS to state in
the ICWA form that the second maternal great grandfather was
unknown, when in fact Paz G.’s name and possible birth date in
New Mexico were known and stated in the addendum, the error
was harmless. Mother made no claim and provided no
information that any Indian ancestry was suspected through
Paz G.’s lineage. (See, e.g., In re Cheyanne F. (2008)
164 Cal.App.4th 571, 577 [in the absence of information the
12
mother’s family history was relevant to the tribe’s inquiry, “there
is no basis upon which to conclude that the outcome would have
been different”]; Nicole K. v. Superior Court (2007)
146 Cal.App.4th 779, 784 [where parent did not claim a direct
connection to any tribe, there was no basis to conclude providing
a correct year of birth would have produced a different result on
the question of the child’s Indian ancestry].) As we explained
above, this is not a situation where DCFS’s inquiry was
inadequate. Any assumed error was only in the presentation of
the information to the tribes for their review. Thus, the
conditional reversal required in Desi C. is not applicable here.
(Desi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1145 [“when an initial Cal-ICWA
inquiry is inadequate, conditional reversal is warranted in order
to develop the record and cure the inadequacy”].)
Nevertheless, we note the better practice for DCFS to
follow in the future would be to include all known information
clearly in the ICWA-030 form to the extent possible, and to only
rely on an addendum for additional facts for which there is no
room on the form itself. Furthermore, in providing information to
tribal entities, DCFS should focus on the information that is
relevant to their inquiry.
Mother also argues the record does not show whether
DCFS renoticed two tribes as ordered to do so by the juvenile
court, or if it did, the record does not show what was contained in
those notices. Again, our review of the record does not support
Mother’s argument.
At the hearing in February 2025, counsel for DCFS
indicated a belief that the Colorado River Indian Tribes and the
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., may not have served responses
to the ICWA forms served in June 2023. Accordingly, the court
13
ordered as follows: “[s]o to the extent that they still have not
received responses from those tribes, the Department a [sic] does
need to renotice them.”
However, the record demonstrates that counsel was
mistaken, as the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. had in fact
responded on July 6, 2023, within a couple of weeks of having
received the ICWA forms. There was no basis for DCFS to serve
them again. The response from Colorado River Indian Tribes
was delayed but was received within days of the court’s order of
February 11, 2025. A second response, repeating the no
eligibility determination stated in the first, was sent to DCFS in
May 2025. The record demonstrates nothing more than a
delayed response by one entity to the ICWA forms served in June
2023.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to
minors Aaron and An.F. is affirmed.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
WILEY, Acting P. J.
SCHERB, J.
14