In re H.L. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: E085534
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 7/16/25 In re H.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E085534

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J298206 & J298207) v. OPINION N.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson,

Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Helena Rho, Deputy County Counsel, for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 The juvenile court terminated defendant and appellant N.S.’s (mother) parental

rights as to H.L. (born March 2018) and E.L. (born July 2013, collectively “minors”). On

appeal, mother contends the court committed reversible error in finding that plaintiff and

respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the department),

complied with their duty of inquiry with respect to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

(ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and Welfare and Intuitions Code section 224.2,

subdivision (a) (Cal-ICWA).1 We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2023, personnel from the department received an immediate

response referral indicating that mother had driven off a ledge into a wash while

intoxicated. H.L., who was in the car at the time but not in a car seat, sustained neck pain

and a lump on her head. Both were hospitalized. Officers arrested mother for driving

under the influence and child endangerment.

C.L. (father), who was found to be minors’ presumed father in the previous

dependency case, was deceased. Nonetheless, the social worker reviewed databases to

locate current contact information for father; she found no phone numbers or addresses

for father. The social worker “searched local county Coroner records but was unable to

confirm the reported death of the presumed father.”

On August 20, 2023, the department placed minors into protective custody. On

August 22, 2023, the department filed section 300 juvenile dependency petitions alleging

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 that mother had an unresolved history of substance abuse (B-1), that mother had a

criminal history (B-2), that mother drove a vehicle while intoxicated placing H.L. at

danger (B-3),2 that father’s whereabouts and ability to care for minors was unknown (B-4

& G-6), that mother had been arrested and could not care for minors (G-5), and that

parents had a history of juvenile dependency interventions (J-7 & J-8).3 At the detention

hearing on August 23, 2023, the court detained minors.

On September 8, 2023, the department filed a declaration of due diligence

reflecting, “Search efforts revealed that alleged father . . . is deceased.” A database

indicated father died in February 2021: “Social worker was notified to request death

certificate. Search is complete.”

In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed on September 11, 2023, the social

worker recommended the court find some of the allegations true, remove minors from

mother’s custody, and provide mother reunification services. The social worker met with

mother, who denied any Native American ancestry. The social worker spoke with the

maternal uncle and maternal step-grandmother; both denied any Native American

heritage. The social worker concluded ICWA did not apply. Nevertheless, the social

2 The department did not make this allegation against E.L.; thus, the remaining allegations as to E.L. were renumbered. The department did make an allegation as to E.L. under J-7 that mother drove a vehicle while intoxicated placing H.L. at danger.

3 Mother had a recent dependency case based on concerns that she would drive under the influence of alcohol and engaged in acts of domestic violence. In that case, the juvenile court sustained the allegations; minors were returned to mother with family maintenance services after she received reunification services. The case had been closed. Mother also had a history of numerous other prior dependency interventions with several substantiated allegations involving alcohol. 3 worker put in the recommendations that the court find that minors “do come under the

provisions of” ICWA.4

At the hearing on September 13, 2023, the court asked mother whether father had

“any Native American or Indian Blood?” Mother responded, “No. He was Caucasian.”

Mother completed an ICWA-020 form on the same date reflecting that she had no Native

American ancestry.

At the hearing on November 22, 2023, the department requested that the B-2, B-4,

G-5, G-6, and J-8 allegations as to H.L. and the B-2, B-3, G-4, G-5, and J-8 allegations as

to E.L. be dismissed. The court dismissed those allegations. The court found the

remaining allegations true, removed minors from mother’s custody, and granted mother

reunification services. The court appears to have crossed out the portion of

recommendations that the court find that minors “do” come under ICWA and have

inserted the word “may.”

In the May 6, 2024, status review report, the social worker incorrectly noted that

the court had found that ICWA did not apply at the dispositional hearing. The social

worker reported, “On April 26, 2024, the mother . . . reported that she has no Native

American Ancestry. The mother reported that neither of the children have Native

American Ancestry and that no members of her family have Native American Ancestry.”

4 This appears to be a clerical mistake. Subsequent indications by the social worker that the court had already ruled that minors did not come under ICWA makes it reasonably inferable that the social worker meant to recommend that the court find the minors “do not” come under ICWA. 4 With respect to father, the social worker noted, “On September 18, 2023, the

Department received confirmation that the father . . . is deceased. On or about April

2024, the Department . . . submitted the request for the Death Certificate and [it] is

pending.” At the hearing on May 22, 2024, the court continued mother’s reunification

services.

The status review report filed September 26, 2024, reflected the social worker’s

recommendation to terminate mother’s reunification services and set the section 366.26

hearing. The social worker, again, incorrectly noted that the court had previously found

ICWA did not apply on November 22, 2023. The social worker included an updated

graph of all ICWA inquiries in the case. The social worker noted, “On August 21, 2024,

the mother . . . reported that she has no Native American Ancestry. The mother reported

that neither of the children have Native American Ancestry and that no members of her

family have Native American Ancestry.” The social worker reported the maternal

grandfather and maternal step-grandmother had also denied any Indian ancestry.

The social worker further reported, “As a reminder to court, on September 18,

2023, the mother . . . completed the Parent: Family Find and ICWA Inquiry form and did

not identify anyone as close relatives to the children. The Department has not received

any information, nor [has] anyone . . . contacted the Department to inquire about the

wellbeing or to have contact with the children.” “On September 18, 2023, the

Department received confirmation that the father . . . is deceased. The Department has

the Death Certificate on file.”

5 In an interim review report filed on October 7, 2024, the social worker, yet again,

mistakenly noted that “on November 22, 2023, the Court found that the Indian Child

Welfare does not apply.” On October 21, 2024, the court terminated mother’s

reunification services and set the section 366.26 hearing.

In a November 27, 2024, information for the court, the social worker provided an

ICWA update. The social worker “was able to obtain names and contact information for

[mother’s] family members and the father’s side of the family.” Mother gave the social

worker the paternal grandparents’ names and said they resided in Oregon, but she did not

have any contact information for them. The mother was also able to provide the names of

two of father’s sisters but did not have any contact information for them. Mother said of

the father, “‘his family is all white, I think they have Irish blood, no Native American

ancestry.’” The maternal aunt, maternal uncle, maternal grandmother, and maternal aunt

all denied Indian heritage. “There are no additional relatives to inquire about Indian

Heritage.”

At a hearing on December 9, 2024, the department requested “the Court to find

that the Department has complied with the duty of inquiry, that there is no reason to know

this is an Indian child, and . . . ICWA does not apply.” The court responded, “So found.”

In the February 5, 2025, section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended

that mother’s parental rights be terminated and that a permanent plan of adoption be

implemented. The social worker noted, “As indicated in the Detention report dated

August 23, 2023, on August 20, 2023, the mother, . . . denied Native American ancestry

6 as she has not lived on a reservation, is not a member or eligible for membership with any

known Native American tribe, and has no identification or enrollment number for Native

American ancestry.” “[O]n September 6, 2023, the mother denied Native American

ancestry. At the same hearing, the maternal uncle, . . ., and maternal step-grandmother

. . . denied Native American ancestry.” “[T]he Court found that . . . [ICWA] did not

apply.” “All the additional family members that were listed on the Family Find and

ICWA inquiry form, that the parent provided were all contacted . . . and all the additional

family members denied Native American ancestry.”

On February 18, 2025, the court found minors adoptable and terminated mother’s

parental rights.

II. DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court failed to ensure the department complied with

ICWA and Cal-ICWA. Specifically, mother maintains that the department failed to make

sufficient inquiries of “the paternal grandparents, who resided in Oregon, and made no

effort to contact two paternal aunts [with] information provided by . . . mother.” Mother

concedes, “It may ha[ve] been that these paternal relatives were not accessible, . . .”

Nevertheless, she maintains “the Department was obligated to get back to the court as to

the paternal relatives that were known of, including the paternal grandparents, and two

paternal aunts [since] [t]here was no reporting by the Department to the juvenile court of

any efforts it made to locate and inquire of any paternal relatives.” We disagree.

7 “In 1978, Congress enacted the [ICWA] to ‘formalize[] federal policy relating to

the placement of Indian children outside the family home.’ [Citation.] Under ICWA’s

state analogue, the California Indian Child Welfare Act (Cal-ICWA; [citation]), courts

and child welfare agencies are charged with ‘an affirmative and continuing duty to

inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child’ in dependency cases. [Citation.]

Child welfare agencies discharge this state law duty by ‘asking the child, parents, legal

guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the

child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an

Indian child and where the child, the parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled.’

[Citation.]” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1124-1125 (Dezi C.), fn. omitted;

accord In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1099.)

“Agencies and juvenile courts have ‘an affirmative and continuing duty’ in every

dependency proceeding to determine whether ICWA applies by inquiring whether a child

is or may be an Indian child. [Citation.]” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1131-1332.)

“[T]he duty to inquire ‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal

guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the

child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an

Indian child.’ [Citation.] ‘[E]xtended family member’ means ‘a person who has reached

the age of eighteen and who is the Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or

sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or

8 stepparent.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1132, fn. omitted; see In re Kenneth D., supra, 16

Cal.5th at p. 1099, fn. 5.)

“The juvenile court’s factual finding that ICWA does not apply is ‘subject to

reversal based on sufficiency of the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at

p. 1134; accord In re Kenneth D., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1101.) “[T]he juvenile court’s

fact-specific determination that an inquiry is adequate, proper, and duly diligent is ‘a

quintessentially discretionary function’ [citation] subject to a deferential standard of

review. [Citations.] ‘“On a well-developed record, the court has relatively broad

discretion to determine whether the agency’s inquiry was proper, adequate, and duly

diligent on the specific facts of the case. However, the less developed the record, the

more limited that discretion necessarily becomes.”’ [Citations.]” (Dezi C., at p. 1141;

accord In re Kenneth D., at pp. 1101-1102.)

Reversal is not required where “every possible extended family member has not

been asked about the child’s Indian ancestry.” The department is not required “‘to “find”

unknown relatives and others who have an interest in the child, merely to make

reasonable inquiries.’ The operative concept is those people who are reasonably available

to help the agency with its investigation.’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1140;

compare In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 553 (Y.W.) [department failed its duty of

inquiry where it failed to locate and inquire of the minor’s biological parents “once the

social worker learned of a potentially viable lead to locate them”].)

9 Here, both the department and the court conducted inquiries of extended family

members, all of whom repeatedly denied having any Native American ancestry.

Although mother eventually gave the department the names of some paternal relatives

and their purported state of residence, mother was unable to provide any contact

information for them. Moreover, mother stated of father, “He was Caucasian.” She also

said, “‘his family is all white, I think they have Irish blood, no Native American

ancestry.’” Unlike Y.W., the social worker had no “potentially viable lead to locate” any

of the paternal relatives. (Y.W., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 553.) Substantial evidence

supported the court’s determination that ICWA did not apply.

We see nothing in the law to require the department to make exhaustive attempts

to inquire of extended family members who have not participated in the proceedings.

This is particularly true where, as here, none of the relatives of whom mother complains

the department failed to sufficiently inquire were “‘reasonably available.’” (Dezi C.,

supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1140.) Moreover, there is no reason here to know, let alone reason

to believe, that minor was an Indian child because repeated inquiries of extended family

members all reflected no Indian ancestry. On this record, the social worker’s inquiries

were “‘“proper, adequate, and duly diligent.”’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141;

accord In re Kenneth D., supra,16 Cal.5th at pp. 1101-1102.)

Furthermore, this court has previously held that defective ICWA notice as to one

sibling is harmless when there has been good ICWA notice as to another sibling who has

been found not to be an Indian child. (In re E.W. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 396, 400-403

10 [“[B]ased on considerations of judicial economy, the assured futility of providing

identical notice regarding [minor], and the [minor’s] need for stability[,] [e]ven a

conditional reversal with limited remand would be an empty formality and a waste of

ever-more-scarce judicial resources.”].) Here, father was alive and participated in the

first dependency proceeding as to the same minors, and that juvenile court found that

ICWA did not apply. Thus, even if there was any error, any error would be harmless.

Minors “deserve permanence and stability as soon as possible. We cannot

condone delaying that permanence for an empty exercise with a preordained outcome,

especially where that exercise does nothing concrete to further the purposes of ICWA.”

(In re E.W., supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 402.) The court acted within its “relatively

broad discretion” in determining that ICWA did not apply.

III. DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER J.

FIELDS J.