Filed 4/29/22 In re H.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant J.G. (father) appeals from the order of the Riverside County juvenile court terminating his parental rights as to H.G. (the child) pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] We will dismiss his appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

In January 2021, respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) took the child, then seven months old, into protective custody and filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300. At the ensuing detention hearing, juvenile court ordered the child detained. Based on the father’s indication he may have Indian ancestry, the court found the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) may apply and ordered the Department “to further investigate that reason to believe.”[2]

In the course of the March 25, 2021 contested hearing on jurisdiction and disposition, the juvenile court found the Department had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding whether the child may have Indian ancestry and held she is not an Indian child coming within ICWA. The court sustained the juvenile dependency petition as amended, adjudged the child a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 300, and removed her from father and her mother. Reunification services were not offered to either parent pursuant to subdivision (11) of section 361.5 because each had suffered termination of parental rights with respect to a sibling or half-sibling of the child with no subsequent reasonable effort to treat the problem leading to that child’s removal.[3]

On December 2, 2021, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of father and the mother as to the child pursuant to section 366.26. Father appealed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, father argues the juvenile court erred when it failed to exact full compliance by the Department with its duty to inquire as to the child’s Native American ancestry because there was reason to believe the child may be an Indian child coming within ICWA. (§ 224.2, subd. (e); rule 5.481(a).) Specifically, father complains that the Department not only failed to ask the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians whether it had information concerning the child’s lineage, but also failed to provide full documentation concerning inquiries made.

In response, the Department asserts it had contacted the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and moved to augment the record on appeal to include letters of inquiry sent by electronic mail to the tribes identified by father, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Those documents had been filed in the juvenile court but had not been included in the clerk’s transcript on appeal. We granted the motion. Thereafter, father submitted a letter to this court stating his appeal is moot because the material in the augmented record established compliance by the Department of the ICWA inquiry requirement.

We agree the augmented record establishes the Department made sufficient inquiry with respect to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and, therefore we find the issue raised on appeal is moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

RAPHAEL

J.

[1] All further statutory reference are to the Welfare and Institutions Code and references to rules are to California Rules of Court.

[2] There is a conflict in the record with respect to the court’s ICWA findings made at the detention hearing. The minutes of the hearing contained in the clerk’s transcript state the court found the Department had made a sufficient inquiry into the child’s Indian status, there was a “reason to know” the child came within ICWA, and the court ordered the Department to provide notice to all identified tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The reporter’s transcript reflects the finding set forth in the text. Where there is a conflict between the juvenile court’s statements in the reporter’s transcript and the recitals in the clerk’s transcript, we presume the reporter’s transcript is the more accurate. (Jennifer T. v. Superior Court (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 254, 259; see also, People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855 [any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes is presumed to be the result of clerical error].)

[3] The court also bypassed services as to the mother pursuant to subdivision (10) of section 361.5 because of her failure to reunify with a sibling or half-sibling of the child without subsequently making an effort to treat the problems that let to the removal of the sibling or half-sibling.