Filed 10/19/26 In re J.K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 J.K., a Person Coming Under the B354347
Juvenile Court Law.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos.
24CCJP03379,
24CCJP03379A)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent.
v.
C.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Kristen Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant
County Counsel, Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel Plaintiff and
Respondent
MEMORANDUM OPINON1
J.K. was born in October 2024. On October 24, 2024, the Department
of Children and Family Services filed a petition under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300,2 alleging that J.K.’s mother, C.W., had a
history of substance abuse, including while pregnant with J.K. The petition
further alleged that mother had a history of violent altercations with C.K.,
J.W.’s alleged father, that mother had a history of mental illness and refusal
to take medications, and that C.K. was unable to care for J.K. because he is
intellectually disabled.
On January 3, 2025, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to
mother and ordered J.K. placed with his maternal grandmother. On August
15, 2025, the court ordered reunification services terminated as to mother.
On April 17, 2026, the court ordered mother’s parental rights terminated.
Mother now appeals, arguing the Department failed to comply with its
obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related
California law.3
Mother does not contest the merits of the juvenile court’s orders.
1 We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background
because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts
of the case and its procedural history. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97
Cal.App.4th 847, 850-855.)
2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise stated.
3 Because ICWA uses the term “Indian,” we do the same for consistency,
although we recognize other terms are preferred. (In re Benjamin M. (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1., overruled on other grounds by In re Dezi C.
(2024) 1112, 1150 (Dezi C.).)
2
ICWA imposes a continuing, affirmative obligation on both the
Department and the juvenile court to determine whether a child is, or might
be, an Indian child. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1131–1132.) The
Department’s duty to inquire about possible Indian heritage begins “[a]t the
first contact with the child and each family member, including extended
family members.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b)(1).)
Here, mother argues the Department failed to meet its obligation
because it failed to make an ICWA inquiry during a telephone call with C.K.’s
mother. In response, the Department argues it had no duty to inquire in that
phone call because C.K.’s paternity of J.K. was never established, and even if
paternity was established, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
determination that ICWA does not apply here. Mother did not file a reply
brief to rebut this argument, and we agree with the Department.
ICWA expressly excludes “an unwed father where paternity has not
been acknowledged or established” from its definition of “parent.” (25 U.S.C.
§ 1903, subd. (9).) The corresponding California statute defines “parent” as
“any biological parent . . . or . . . person who has lawfully adopted [the child].”
(§ 224.1, subd. (c)(2).) Therefore, until paternity is demonstrated, an alleged
father is not covered by ICWA and there is no duty of inquiry. (In re C.A.
(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 511, 519–521.)
J.K.’s paternity was never established. The alleged father, C.K., was
neither present at J.K.’s birth nor listed on the birth certificate, and no
parentage test was conducted. C.K. refused to participate in the juvenile
court’s proceedings, and never met J.K. Because C.K.’s paternal relationship
to J.K. was never established, the Department’s duty to inquire of C.K.’s
relatives did not attach.
3
However, even if C.K.’s paternal status had been shown, substantial
evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that ICWA did not apply. (See
Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1134 [ICWA findings reviewed for sufficiency
of the evidence].) C.K. himself denied Indian ancestry, as did his brother,
who was the only other member of C.K.’s family available to the Department.
C.K.’s other siblings were reluctant to be involved in the case and never
spoke to the Department. C.K.’s mother had one interaction with the
Department, a phone call she initiated to “see how [J.K.] is doing,” in which
she expressed similar reluctance to be involved before terminating the call.
Nothing in the record indicates the Department has, or ever had, contact
information for C.K.’s mother.
The Department is not required to locate and interview every possible
extended family member. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1140.) It is not
required to trace family members who are not involved in the proceedings
and for whom it has no contact information. (In re K.L. (2026) 120
Cal.App.5th 989, 996.) The Department need only make reasonable inquiries
of the family members who are reasonably available to it. (Dezi C., supra, 16
Cal.5th at p. 1140.) Here, those family members were C.K. and his brother.
Both denied any Indian ancestry. There was no reasonable prospect that any
other evidence could be obtained. The court’s determination that ICWA did
not apply was supported by substantial evidence.
4
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZUKIN, P. J.
We concur:
TAMZARIAN, J.
DAUM, J.
5