In re H.C.
Filed 3/14/13 In re H.C. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Siskiyou)
----
>
In re H. C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SISKIYOU COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. C., Defendant and Appellant. | C071803 (Super. Ct. No. SCSCJVSQ1151147) |
Appellant J.C., father of the minor,
appeals from juvenile court orders terminating
adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 395.)
title="">[1]
Father claims it was error for the juvenile court to rule that the
apply, because notice of the proceeding was not sent to the Blackfeet Tribe of
Montana.
The record establishes that the
minor did not have Indian heritage with a federally recognized tribe. Accordingly, ICWA notice was not
required. We will affirm the juvenile
court’s orders.
BACKGROUND
Our recitation of the background is
limited to the circumstances relevant to the contention on appeal. The
County Human Services Department (Department) took the minor into
protective custody on August 9, 2011. At
the subsequent detention hearing, mother testified she was not aware that she
had any Native American or Indian heritage.
Father testified he was “not sure†if he had any Native American or
Indian heritage, adding, “I don’t have any idea at all.â€
The minor’s paternal grandfather
said at the detention hearing that father’s maternal grandmother had a father
who was Indian and Spanish and a mother who was Indian and French. The minor’s paternal grandfather did not know
with which tribe father’s maternal grandmother was associated, but the minor’s
paternal grandfather provided the name, address and contact information for
father’s maternal grandmother. The
minor’s paternal grandfather gave no indication that there was any Indian
ancestry on his side of the family.
According to the social worker’s
six-month review report, father said his mother has Aztec heritage and his father
(the minor’s paternal grandfather) is descended from the “Blackfoot
Tribe.†However, the social worker spoke
with father’s maternal grandmother and she indicated “she is not aware of any
Native American heritage for [father].â€
The social worker also spoke with the minor’s paternal grandfather, who
reported that his family was descended from “Blackfoot Indians in Canada†and that father’s mother was descended from
Aztec people in
the social worker that none of father’s Native American ancestry was “through
any federally recognized Tribe.â€
At the ensuing six-month review
hearing, the juvenile court found the minor was not an Indian child within the
meaning of ICWA. Several months later,
the juvenile court held a section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court found it is likely the
minor will be adopted, and the court selected adoption as the permanent
plan.
DISCUSSION
Father claims it was error for the
juvenile court to rule that ICWA did not apply, because notice of the
proceeding was not sent to the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. Father argues such notice should have been
sent because father told the social worker the paternal grandfather descended
from the “Blackfoot Tribe†and the sole federally registered Blackfoot tribe is
the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana.
ICWA protects the interests of
Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by
establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in,
dependency actions. (25 U.S.C.
§§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1912.) The
juvenile court and the welfare agency have an affirmative duty to inquire at
the outset of the proceeding whether a child who is subject to the proceeding
is, or may be, an Indian child. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) If,
after the petition is filed, the juvenile court “knows or has reason to know
that an Indian child is involved,†notice of the pending proceeding and the
right to intervene must be sent to the tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs if
the tribal affiliation is not known. (25
U.S.C. § 1912; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).)
An Indian child is defined as, among
other things, a member of an Indian tribe, or eligible for membership in an
Indian tribe and the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. (§ 224.1, subd. (b); 25 U.S.C.
§ 1903(4).) Under ICWA, “Indian
tribe†has a very specific and restricted meaning. It includes only those groups or communities
of Indians recognized as eligible to receive certain services from the
Secretary of the Interior. (25 U.S.C.
§ 1903(8).) The Federal Register
lists the recognized Indian entities.
Only those tribes are subject to the notice provisions of ICWA.
Here, although the Department and
the juvenile court had reason to believe the minor had “Blackfoot†heritage,
the Blackfoot tribe is not a federally recognized tribe. (77 Fed.Reg. 47869 (amended Aug. 10, 2012)
[listing the “Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of
Montanaâ€].)
Although there is a possibility of
confusing the similarly named Blackfoot and Blackfeet tribes, the record
establishes there was no confusion here.
The social worker investigated further and obtained confirmation from
the paternal grandfather that his Indian affiliation was with the Blackfoot
Indians in Canada and not with any federally recognized tribe. Having ruled out the possibility that the
minor may be a member or eligible for membership in the federally recognized
Blackfeet tribe, ICWA notice was not required.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are
affirmed.
MAURO , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
MURRAY , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
