Filed 2/7/18 In re Z.C. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re Z.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.


E068858

(Super.Ct.No. J268271)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant F.C.
Maryann M. Good, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.C.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
F.C. (also known as F.M.; Father) and S.C. (Mother) appeal after the termination of their parental rights to Z.C. (Minor) at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Father had a violent criminal history. Mother, who had seven other children removed from her custody due to substance abuse, tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of Minor’s birth. Further, Father assaulted his sister, M.A. (Aunt) during the pending dependency proceedings. Father and Mother (Parents) were both denied reunification services. Parents participated in some services on their own and maintained visitation after the disposition hearing. The juvenile court denied their section 388 petitions requesting reunification services or return of Minor to their care without a hearing. The parental rights of Mother and Father were terminated at the section 366.26 hearing and Minor was freed for adoption.
Parents claim on appeal that the juvenile court erred by denying a hearing on their section 388 petitions. Further, Father, joined by Mother, insists that the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA) notice was deficient.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. DETENTION
On November 17, 2016, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition against Father (age 39) and Mother (age 31) for Minor (a female, born September 2016). Minor remained in the custody of Parents. It was alleged under section 300, subdivision (b), against Mother that she had a history of substance abuse, which negatively impacted her ability to adequately parent Minor. It was further alleged under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) that Minor had seven siblings. Four of these siblings had been adopted and the other three children were in a permanent placement plan. This placed Minor at similar risk of abuse and neglect.
The Department detailed that Mother had four children removed from her care in 2006 due to her substance abuse and her rights were terminated to these four children in May 2011 due to her minimal attempt to obtain drug treatment. The children were adopted in March 2012. Mother gave birth to a another child in September 2013 and tested positive for methamphetamine. The Department placed her, the newborn, and two other children on a family maintenance plan. In May 2015, the three children were removed from her care due to her substance abuse and non-compliance with services. These three children were in permanent placement.
In September 2016, Minor was born. Mother tested positive for opiates but Minor was negative for all substances. It was determined the substance could be Tylenol III with codeine prescribed by Mother’s dentist. Mother insisted she had not used methamphetamine for one year. Mother had a criminal history of drug offenses.
Mother had been with Father for two years. They were going to live with paternal grandmother (PGM) once Minor was discharged from the hospital. A social worker examined PGM’s home and determined that it had adequate provisions for Minor. Father was interviewed and there were no concerns. Father had a conviction for kidnapping and a drug offense. Minor was allowed to stay with Parents.
On November 1, 2016, a home inspection was conducted. Minor and PGM were the only ones home and Minor seemed well cared for. Parents tested negative for any substances on November 2, 2016. The Department recommended Minor remain in the custody of Parents under a family maintenance plan. Mother appeared to be maintaining her sobriety. Father reported he had possible Apache ancestry.
On November 18, 2016, the date of the detention hearing, Parents appeared but failed to cooperate with the Department prior to the hearing by filling out the appropriate forms. They both left prior to the hearing. Father was contacted by phone at home but he refused to return to court. Mother was unavailable. The juvenile court noted that it was going to make new findings and orders.
The juvenile court ordered Minor detained. The juvenile court issued an order for her apprehension. The juvenile court noted that the parents may not get reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(1), (b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13). The juvenile court ordered parents to submit ICWA-020 forms.
On November 22, 2016, an amended section 300 petition was filed. It was additionally alleged under section 300, subdivision (b) that Father had a criminal history, including an arrest for possession of illegal substances and kidnapping; Father had a substance abuse problem; and both parents had engaged in domestic violence, which placed Minor at risk of harm. It was alleged under section 300, subdivision (j) that Mother had seven children. Of those children, four children were detained due to her substance abuse and they were adopted in May 2012. Three other children were detained due to Mother’s substance abuse in September 2013 and were in permanent placement. A section 366.26 hearing was scheduled for February 2017 for those children.
A social worker, accompanied by two San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputies, went to PGM’s home to detain Minor. Father denied entry into the house for over 20 minutes. He insisted there was not enough proof for the Department to take Minor. Father appeared to control Mother during the interaction not allowing her to comply with turning over Minor. Minor was finally taken into custody. Minor was placed with maternal aunt (MA).
The Department received information that Parents had engaged in domestic violence with Mother receiving bruises and a broken arm. Father completed an ICWA-020 form. The only entry was “Arizona MGF.” Mother completed a form and stated “not sure” as to her Indian ancestry.
A detention hearing was held on the amended petition on November 23, 2016. The juvenile court found a prima facie case and ordered that Minor be detained outside the home. Parents were present at the hearing. Mother stated she “may” have Indian ancestry but was not sure. Father stated he had Native American ancestry but was not sure of the tribe. Ancestry was from Father’s mother’s father, which was Minor’s great-grandfather (PGGF), and he lived in Arizona.
B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION
A jurisdiction/disposition report was filed on December 6, 2016. It was recommended that the amended section 300 petition be found true and that Minor be removed from Parents. It recommended that a section 366.26 hearing be set. Minor had been moved to a foster family on November 28, 2016.
The social worker reported that Parents had been difficult to contact during the reporting period. Mother was interviewed one time. She stated she began taking drugs at the age of 15. She had completed inpatient drug treatment programs while in services for her other children. Mother denied any domestic violence with Father. She denied any bruises on her came from Father. Mother denied that Father used drugs. The social worker tried to speak with Father during one of the visitations, but he refused to speak with her. She attempted to give Father referrals for services, but he refused them. Father wanted the social worker to talk to his attorney.
Mother did not complete her drug test on November 23, 2016, because she was “caught with device.” She was a no show for her drug test on November 28, 2016. Father refused to drug test on November 23, 2016. Parents were determined to be cousins on their father’s side, which made Aunt Father’s sister. Minor had been placed with Aunt until November 28, 2016.
Aunt reported that she and her 13-year-old daughter had gone to Father’s house to discuss weekly visitation with Minor. He was upset and stated he could visit Minor any time that he wanted. He became aggressive and pushed her to the ground. She sustained an injury to her forehead. Aunt did not immediately call the police because she did not want Father to be in trouble. Another social worker had seen the injury and described it as a golf-ball sized bump. Aunt would not allow the injury to be photographed.
A person close to the family had reported to the Department that he or she suspected that Father was abusing Mother. Mother was seen with bruises and a broken arm. The Department discovered Father had a prior attempted murder conviction from 1995 when he was a juvenile.
The Department reported that reunification was “guarded at best.” Mother had a long history with the Department and with drug use. Mother had been offered numerous services in the past but continued to fail to reunify with her children. Father had a history of violent convictions. Further, he had recently assaulted Aunt and refused to be interviewed regarding the incident. Minor had no known development delays. Parents had not visited with Minor during the reporting period. The Department recommended that no reunification services be provided under section 361.5, subdivisions (b), (b)(10), (b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13).
A declaration of due diligence for ICWA notice was filed on December 6, 2016. Notice was given to the following entities: (1) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Sacramento; (2) U.S. Department of Interior BIA in Washington, D.C.; (3) Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Mexico; (4) San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona; (5) Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; (6) White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona; (7) Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; (8) Fort Sill Apache Tribe in Oklahoma; (9) Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico; and (10) and Yavapai-Apache Nation in Arizona. Copies of the certified mail receipts were included. Parents were both served.
The notice stated that the jurisdiction/disposition hearing was set for December 8, 2016. It listed that Minor may be eligible for membership in “Apache” or “No Tribe Specified.” It included the names and addresses of Parents. Names and addresses for Mother’s and Father’s parents were given. No tribe or band was provided. Tribal membership for all, including PGGF, was listed as “Bureau of Indian Affairs.” The names only of Minor’s maternal great-grandparents were given. The names of all four of Minor’s paternal great-grandparents were given with some information such as birth dates and addresses.
At a hearing conducted on December 8, 2016, Parents were ordered to drug test. The jurisdiction/disposition hearings were set contested. Further, the juvenile court ordered separate visitation with Minor for Parents.
On February 9, 2017, another ICWA declaration of due diligence was filed with the juvenile court. Six of the tribes served had responded that Minor was not enrolled and they would not intervene.
An addendum report was filed on February 14, 2017. It was recommended that Minor be removed from Parents and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. Father had been with Mother during visitation, which violated the juvenile court’s order that they have separate visits. Father advised the social worker that all of the allegations against him were false. He insisted he never touched Aunt. Father accused Aunt of lying because PGM liked him better than her. Father had attended one class and had missed a drug test on February 3, 2017. He had a negative test on February 7, 2017. He claimed he was unable to provide a sample at a test on February 9. Father was listed as Minor’s biological father on her birth certificate.
Mother tested positive for amphetamines on January 17, 2017. On February 7, 2017, Mother had advised the drug treatment facility she had missed several days because she had been using drugs. Mother had missed drug tests in December 2016 and January 2017. Mother had also violated the rules on visitation by attending Father’s visit in January 2017. Parents were reported to be drinking and fighting in front of Minor’s siblings during an unauthorized visit with these children. PGM was still being assessed for placement of Minor. As of February 8, 2017, Mother had completed none of her domestic violence classes and had attended no therapy sessions. The Department included all of the petitions filed against Mother and minute orders from the jurisdiction/disposition hearings for Minor’s siblings.
The jurisdiction hearing was conducted on February 14, 2017. The Department submitted on its reports. Parents presented no further evidence. Mother objected to the allegation of domestic violence. Father objected to the substance abuse allegation; he did not use drugs. He had tested negative on November 8, 2016. He had difficulties with the subsequent drug tests; he was not trying to avoid the tests. The Department noted that Father was a no show for four of the drug tests.
The juvenile court found the section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) allegations true in the amended petition. The disposition hearing was bifurcated. Father was ordered to submit to a drug test. Father was unable to test due to the testing facility not having his paperwork.
The contested disposition hearing was conducted on February 16, 2017. The Department submitted on the reports. Mother presented no evidence but objected to the recommendation of services and setting of the section 366.26 hearing.
Father testified. Father had cared for Minor for one month prior to her removal. He fed her, put her to sleep and changed her. Father admitted that he had been convicted of kidnapping. He served his time and successfully completed parole. He had no further criminal convictions. The last time he used a controlled substance was when he was 17 years old; he was 39 years old. He did have a substance abuse problem but would be willing to participate in a substance-abuse program if ordered to do so by the juvenile court.
He indicated he had failed to drug test on February 14, 2017, because the testing center did not have his paperwork. He had taken two parenting classes. He attended five substance abuse classes. Father explained when the Department first tried to detain Minor, he did not let the sheriff’s deputies into the house because he was not shown a warrant when they initially arrived at the property. Father insisted he left the first detention hearing because he did not understand that it involved Minor and no one would answer his questions.
Father was willing to be a single parent to Minor and to separate from Mother to get custody. Father was requesting reunification services. He was currently employed as a landscaper.
Father admitted he had a conviction for drug possession when he was 20 years old. He was in prison for 10 years starting in 2002. He was 17 years old when he was convicted of attempted murder and he was sent to the youth authority. He briefly denied he ever touched Aunt but then exercised his Fifth Amendment rights. He had never engaged in domestic violence with Mother; Mother’s children were lying about them getting into fights.
After Father’s testimony, the juvenile court ruled that Father was the presumed father. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Minor should be removed from the physical custody of Parents because there was a substantial danger to her health and safety. Reunification services were denied to Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11) and (b)(13). Reunification services were denied to Father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12). The juvenile court had concerns about Father not following the rules set by it and the Department. Father jeopardized his ability to have Minor returned to his care by assaulting Aunt. Separate visitation was ordered. The matter was set for a section 366.26 hearing.
C. ICWA FINDING
A final declaration of due diligence on the ICWA notice was filed on March 3, 2017. The Mescalero Tribe, White Mountain Tribe, the BIA and the Secretary of the Interior had failed to respond to the properly served notice and 65 days had passed since service.
On March 3, 2017, the juvenile court issued its order on the ICWA notice. It declared that it had been 65 days since the notice was received by the tribes, BIA, and the Secretary of the Interior. There was no affirmative response regarding tribal membership. The juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply and that no further notice was required.
D. SECTION 366.26 REPORT
The Department filed its section 366.26 report on June 7, 2017. Minor had been placed with her foster parents, now the prospective adoptive parents, since November 28, 2016. It was recommended that parental rights be terminated and Minor be freed for adoption. There were no health concerns regarding Minor. She was bonded to the prospective adoptive parents. There were no problems with visitation during the reporting period.
E. SECTION 388 PETITIONS
Father filed his section 388 petition on June 22, 2017. Father presented evidence that he completed the following courses: On April 28, 2017, a four-week anger management course; a nurturing father course on May 9, 2017; a five-week parenting class on April 26, 2017; and a 30-day drug treatment program as of April 28, 2017. He had been taking random drug tests, which were all negative. He attended AA meetings. He was enrolled in college courses. It was in Minor’s best interest to be returned to Father because they were bonded. If Father was not considered for placement, he sought placement with the PGM.
Father submitted a declaration. He had complied with the original case plan initially prepared by the Department as of May 24, 2017. He had learned to control his anger. He had learned about properly parenting Minor. He had benefitted from therapy.
Mother filed her section 388 petition on June 26, 2017. It was in regards to her three children who were currently awaiting a section 366.26 hearing and for Minor. Mother had participated in individual counseling and attended parenting classes. She had completed a residential treatment program at Inland Valley Recovery Services (IVRS). She was currently attending outpatient services at the IVRS. Mother sought reunification services and that visitation be increased. Mother was maintaining her sobriety and regularly visiting with Minor.
The Department filed a response to Father’s section 388 petition. The Department recommended that the petition be denied. The Department acknowledged that Father was addressing his substance abuse issues. As for his anger management, Father continued to deny assaulting Aunt. On July 11, 2017, he informed a social worker that Aunt had lied about him assaulting her. However, Aunt had been seen with an injury. The Department also referred to Mother being seen with bruises and a broken arm.
It was apparent during supervised visits that Father cared deeply for Minor. However, Minor was bonded to the prospective adoptive parents with whom she had been placed since she was two months old (she was nine months old). PGM had not been approved for placement. Although Father had made progress, the Department was concerned that he had not benefitted from anger management treatment and Minor was still at risk of harm.
The Department also filed a response to Mother’s section 388 petition on August 1, 2017, for three of Minor’s siblings and Minor. The Department noted that Mother had failed to follow the rules set by the juvenile court and the Department regarding visitation. Minor’s siblings observed Parents fighting during an unauthorized visit. Mother had a history of failed substance abuse treatment.
F. SECTION 366.26 HEARING AND DENIAL OF SECTION 388 PETITIONS
On August 1, 2017, the juvenile court addressed both the section 388 petitions and held the section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court denied a hearing on Father’s section 388 petition. It remained concerned regarding the violence in Father’s past and the recent history of violence during the dependency case. He accepted no responsibility for the serious injuries to Mother and MA. Although he had completed services, he had a violent past and his actions showed no improvement. Further, Father had not been with Minor since she was two months old. Due to his violations of juvenile court orders, his visitation had been restricted. Minor’s needs had been met for the prior seven months by the prospective adoptive parents. The juvenile court found that there was no sufficient evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Further, it had not been shown it was in Minor’s best interests to grant the section 388 petition; she deserved permanency.
The juvenile court found that Mother had a very lengthy history of substance abuse. She had a long history of progress and relapsing. During all of the dependency proceedings involving Minor’s siblings Mother would make progress and then relapse. She had not shown a sufficient period of sobriety. Further, she blatantly violated visitation orders and engaged in domestic violence in front of Minor’s siblings. Further, Minor had been out of Mother’s custody most of her life. It was not in Minor’s best interest to grant the section 388 petition. It was denied without a hearing.
Immediately following the denial of the section 388 petitions, the section 366.26 hearing was conducted. Mother testified she had attended all of her visits with Minor since the disposition hearing. Mother cared for Minor the first two months of her life. Minor showed affection toward her during visitation. She appeared to get upset when their visits ended. She wanted a legal guardianship plan maintaining her parental rights. She was still with Father.
Father testified that he preferred legal guardianship over adoption. He and Minor were bonded during their visits. She was happy to visit with him. She cried when the visits were over. He loved Minor. He still lived with Mother.
The juvenile court noted that it was clear that Parents loved Minor. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that Minor would be adopted. She spent most of her life with the prospective adoptive parents and was bonded to them. The juvenile court found that there was insufficient evidence to support that the parental/child bond exception applied. The parental rights of Mother and Father were terminated and Minor was freed for adoption.
DISCUSSION
A. SECTION 388 PETITIONS
Parents both claim that the juvenile court erred by refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on their section 388 petitions. Father contends he made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to be heard on whether Minor should be returned to his custody and care, reinstate reunification services, increase visitation or liberalize visitation with Minor, or place Minor with PGM. His section 388 petition demonstrated both the change of circumstances and that it was in Minor’s best interest to return her to Father’s care. His rights to due process were violated by the denial of a hearing. Mother insists she made a sufficient showing of changed circumstances. Despite losing custody of all of Minor’s siblings due to her substance abuse, she insists her six months of sobriety showed that she had changed her circumstances.
“A juvenile court order may be changed, modified or set aside under section 388 if the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. [Citation.] The parent bears the burden to show both a legitimate change of circumstances and that undoing the prior order would be in the best interest of the child.” (In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 611-612.)
The party seeking modification under section 388 must “ ‘make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing.’ ” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.) “[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806.) “After the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point ‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) A section 388 petition that would delay the child’s placement in a permanent home “does not promote stability for the child or the child’s best interests.” (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.)
“The petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 612.) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.) “ ‘The denial of a section 388 motion rarely merits reversal as an abuse of discretion.’ ” (In re Daniel C. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1445.)
If the petition fails to make a required prima facie showing, summary denial of the petition without a hearing does not violate the petitioner’s due process rights. (See In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 460-461.)
Mother filed her petition after she was denied reunification services and Minor had been out of her care for six months. The petition was based on her sobriety and participation in services since the disposition hearing. She stated that she had been consistent in visiting Minor.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother’s section 388 petition without a hearing. Mother had an extensive history with the Department, having seven of Minor’s siblings removed from her care due to her substance abuse. She admitted using drugs since she was 15 years old. The Department gave Mother a chance to raise Minor, but she refused to attend the detention hearing and comply with the Department. Mother had been difficult to contact at the beginning of the dependency proceedings.
During these proceedings she had numerous setbacks in maintaining her sobriety. She had been caught with some sort of device and had missed a drug test in November 2016. She tested positive for amphetamines in January 2017. Further, as of February 2017, Mother had not completed any parenting classes or attended any therapy sessions. Mother had violated Department orders by having Father attend visitation with her and by failing to drug test.
Mother’s circumstances were changing, not changed. She had a short period of sobriety after the disposition hearing, but did nothing prior to the disposition hearing to alleviate the concerns that required Minor’s removal from her care. Finally, it was not in Minor’s best interest to return to Mother’s care. Mother had shown with Minor’s siblings that she frequently relapsed. Minor had been out of Mother’s care for a majority of her life and had no significant bond with Mother. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Mother failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that it was in Minor’s best interest to modify its previous order to “trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing.” (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 310.)
Father also failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that it was in Minor’s best interest to modify the juvenile court’s order on reunification services or placement of Minor. Father initially refused to cooperate with the Department. He left the detention hearing and did not come back even though he was advised by the social worker that he needed to be present. He also obstructed the Department in detaining Minor. He also violated the juvenile court’s orders regarding visitation.
Moreover, Father had a violent criminal past, which included a conviction for kidnapping for which he served a 10-year prison term. He also had a conviction for attempted murder. He continued his violent behavior during the dependency proceedings. Aunt had stated he pushed her to the ground causing a large injury to her forehead. The injury was observed by a social worker. Father continued to deny he injured Aunt. Further, there was evidence that he had abused Mother but he also denied being engaged in any type of domestic violence. Father showed no changed circumstances as to his violent behavior.
Moreover, Father failed to show it was in Minor’s best interest to be placed in his care. There was no evidence that there was a significant bond between Minor and Father. Moreover, his section 388 petition was filed after reunification services were denied and Minor was in a stable home. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by concluding a hearing was not necessary because there was no prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that Minor’s best interests would be met by offering Father reunification services or placing her in Father’s care. Since there was no prima facie showing, he has not shown his due process rights were violated. (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 460-461.)
B. ICWA NOTICE
Father, joined by Mother, contends the ICWA notice was improper and the juvenile court erred by finding that proper notice had been given.
“Under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and the related California statutes governing custody proceedings involving Indian children (. . . § 224 et seq.), when a juvenile court in dependency proceedings knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, that child must notify the child’s tribe of the pending proceedings and of the tribe’s right of intervention. [Citations.] That notice must include, among other things, the names (including maiden, married, and former names or aliases), birth dates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment numbers, and any other identifying information, to the extent it is known, of the Indian child’s biological parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.” (In re I.B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 367, 369-370.)
“ICWA notices are strictly construed. [Citation.] Generally, defective notice is prejudicial and requires reversal. [Citation.] Because the right to notice belongs to the Indian tribes, a parent can raise the defect on appeal notwithstanding his or her failure to raise it below. ‘[I]t would be contrary to the terms of the [ICWA] to conclude . . . that parental inaction could excuse the failure of the juvenile court to ensure that notice under the [ICWA] was provided to the Indian tribe named in the proceeding.’ ” (In re Amber F. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1155.)
“ ‘If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe.’ [Citation.] State law provides, ‘Notice, to the extent required by federal law, shall be sent to the Secretary of the Interior’s designated agent, the Sacramento Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs.’ ” (In re J.T. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 986, 992.)
We review the juvenile court’s findings on ICWA notice for substantial evidence. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1530.)
Father first claims there was no reason given for only notifying Apache tribes because he had not identified his tribal ancestry. However, in the first amended detention report, the social worker reported that she spoke with both parents regarding Indian ancestry on November 15, 2016. Father stated to the social worker that he had Indian ancestry, “possibly Apache.” In court, Father stated that he was unsure which tribe but that it was through PGGF out of Arizona.
Here, the Department had information both that Father did not know the tribe or he may have Apache ancestry. Father does not dispute that PGGF lived in Arizona. The Department clearly spoke with Father or another of his relatives and Mother or her relatives, based on the information in the ICWA-030 notice which provided names and addresses, up to Minor’s great-grandparents. It is reasonable to assume that the Department did not obtain any further tribal information. As stated, if the identity or location of the tribe cannot be determined, the notice shall be given to the BIA, which was done here. (In re J.T., supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 992) In an abundance of caution, the Department also notified the Apache tribes in Arizona. Such notice was proper.
Father next claims the notice was defective because PGGF’s tribal membership or enrollment number was listed as “Bureau of Indian Affairs.” He claims that such designation is “incomplete, meaningless, and [fails] to inform and provide information to the tribes, in accord with the purpose of the ICWA and related state statutes.” Father provides no information as to what tribe should have been listed. He has complained that there was no evidence that he was part of the Apache tribe. The notice in its entirety stated that the ancestry was possibly Apache or unknown. We cannot find that the notice was defective on this ground.
Finally, Father insists, relying on sections 224.2, subdivision (b) and section 224.3, that the juvenile court erred by failing to afford him and the tribes a noticed hearing and opportunity to be heard regarding the finding that ICWA did not apply. The juvenile court summarily entered its ruling on the notice without a hearing or notice.
Section 224.2, subdivision (b) provides in part, “Notice shall be sent whenever it is known or there is reason to know that an Indian child is involved, and for every hearing thereafter, including, but not limited to, the hearing at which a final adoption order is to be granted, unless it is determined that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) does not apply to the case in accordance with Section 224.3.” Section 224.3 sets forth the procedures for notice, including that the juvenile court can determine if notice has been provided and neither a tribe nor the BIA responds within the statutory time frame, the court may determine that ICWA does not apply to the proceedings, provided the court shall reverse such determination and apply the act prospectively if it is subsequently confirmed that the child is an Indian child.
Father does not specify which hearing should have been noticed under section 224.2, subdivision (b). The section 366.26 hearing occurred after the juvenile court made its determination that ICWA did not apply. Moreover, nothing in sections 224.2 or 224.3 provides that a hearing must be conducted when the juvenile court is making its findings on ICWA notice. Also, Father has failed to provide what further information was available after the ICWA notice was given in this case. As such, we find that there is substantial evidence that proper ICWA notice was given in this case.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order denying both parents’ section 388 petitions and finding that proper ICWA notice was given is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


McKINSTER
Acting P. J.


SLOUGH
J.