In
re Z.O.
Filed
10/15/13 In re
Z.O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.O., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B246619
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK86430)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
E.O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Veronica McBeth.
Affirmed.
Patricia
K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
John
F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M.
Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
E.O.
(Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental
rights to her daughter, Z.O. Mother’s
sole contention on appeal is that the Los Angeles County Department of
(DCFS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the federal
(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and the analogous California statutes governing
custody proceedings involving Indian children (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224
et seq.).
title="">[1] We conclude, based upon the certified
documents provided to us by DCFS with its motion to augment the record on
appeal, which motion we grant, that the inquiry and notice conducted was in
full compliance with the requisites of the statute and therefore affirm the
order terminating parental
rights.
factual and procedural
background
Z.O.
(born in Apr. 2010) was removed from Mother’s custody in February 2011 based on
a referral alleging Mother had physically attacked the maternal grandmother in
the child’s presence. A relative advised
DCFS that the family had native American Indian ancestry. DCFS sent notices to the appropriate tribes
as required by the ICWA.
At
the jurisdiction hearing held on April 26, 2011, the juvenile court received
into evidence a last minute information form dated March 17, 2011, as well as a
last minute information form dated April 26, 2011, to which DCFS had attached
the certified return receipts of the ICWA notices DCFS had sent to the relevant
tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Secretary of the
Interior. Although not contained in the
clerk’s transcript prepared for this appeal, it appears the last minute
information form dated March 17, 2011, and its accompanying
attachments included the notices DCFS had sent to the tribes, the BIA, and the
Secretary of the Interior. Finally, DCFS
filed with the court the letters it had received from the noticed tribes stating
Z.O. was not a member and was not eligible for membership in their respective
tribes. The court sustained the section
300 petition, and found that the ICWA did not apply to this case.
In
June 2012, the court held a 12-month review hearing at which it terminated
family reunification services. In
January 2013, the court held a section 366.26 hearing and terminated parental
rights, ordering adoption by the maternal aunt as the permanent plan for Z.O.
This
appeal followed.
discussion
Pursuant to 25 United States
Code section 1912(a): “In any
involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to
know that an Indian child is involved, [DCFS] shall notify the parent or Indian
custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt
requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.†Section 224.2, subdivision (a)(1) similarly
provides that notice to the tribe “shall be sent by registered or certified
mail with return receipt requested.†“[B]oth the federal ICWA
regulations (25 C.F.R. § 23.11(d)(3) (2008)) and section 224.2,
subdivision (a) require the agency to provide all known information concerning
the child’s parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.†(In re
Cheyanne F. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 571, 576.) Notice given by DCFS pursuant to the ICWA
must contain enough information to permit the tribe to conduct a meaningful
review of its records to determine the child’s eligibility for membership. As relevant here, section 224.2, subdivision
(c) requires that “[p]roof of the notice, including copies of notices sent and all return receipts and responses
received, shall be filed with the court in advance of the hearing
. . . .†(Italics
added.)
The
clerk’s transcript prepared for this appeal does not contain the last minute
information for the court filed on March 17, 2011, which the court received
into evidence at the jurisdiction hearing on April 26, 2011, and which
evidently included the notices sent by DCFS in compliance with ICWA
requirements. However, based upon the
exhibit to the motion to augment the record which contains the notices and
which was obtained from the juvenile court’s file, we are satisfied the court
did in fact receive and review the notices on April
26, 2011, in determining that ICWA notice was proper and that Z.O. is not an
Indian child.
Having
been served with the motion to augment the record on appeal (through her
counsel), Mother has had the opportunity to examine the notices sent to the
tribes. She has not filed a reply brief
and has not argued that the content of those notices was in any way
deficient. Accordingly, we need not
discuss the sufficiency of those notices.
We find no error requiring reversal of the challenged order.
disposition
The
order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA,
J.
We concur:
WILLHITE,
Acting P. J.
MANELLA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
