In re D.K.
Laura K. (mother), has two daughters, 16-year-old D.K. and four-year-old A.H., and a son, three-year-old W.H. Walter H. (father) is the biological father of A.H. and W.H.[1] The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[2] petition as to D.K. and A.H., declaring them to be dependents of the juvenile court, and dismissed the section 300 petition as to W.H. On appeal, mother contends that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition orders must be reversed because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department or DCFS) failed to comply with the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or Act) (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.). The Department cross-appeals from the juvenile court’s order dismissing the section 300 petition as to W.H. We affirm the jurisdictional findings and disposition orders as to D.K. because father did not have a parental relationship to D.K., biological or otherwise, that triggered the ICWA notice provision, and mother does not contend that there was ICWA notice error with respect to mother’s claim of Indian heritage. Because the Department did not comply with the ICWA’s notice requirements as to A.H., we conditionally reverse the jurisdictional findings and disposition orders as to A.H., and remand this case with directions to the juvenile court to ensure full compliance with the ICWA with respect to A.H. We further reverse the juvenile court’s order dismissing the petition as to W.H. Because we hold that the juvenile court should have assumed jurisdiction over W.H., the juvenile court is to make an ICWA determination as to W.H. on remand.
Comments on In re D.K.