Filed 4/4/23 In re S.M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE In re S.M. et al., Persons B323651 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02556A–B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy Assistant County Counsel, Jane E. Kwon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION J.M. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental rights over older child S.M. (born in 2014) and younger child B.M. (born in 2015).1 Father seeks a reversal and remand for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.).2 We affirm. II. BACKGROUND3 On May 7, 2020, the Department filed a section 300 petition alleging the children were at risk of serious physical 1 The children’s half sibling is not a subject of this appeal. 2 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 3 Because the sole issue on appeal concerns compliance by the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) with ICWA and related California law, we limit our recitation of facts to those relevant to that compliance issue, except as is necessary for context. 2 harm because of mother’s physical abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence with half sibling’s father, and leaving the children in maternal grandmother’s custody without a care plan. In ICWA-010(A) forms filed with the dependency petition, the Department indicated that ICWA may apply because the Department could not obtain any statements from the parents. Maternal grandmother reported that the children did not have Indian tribal ancestry because the family immigrated from Guatemala. Father was incarcerated and was not in contact with the children. On May 12, 2020, mother filed an ICWA-020 form, denying any Indian ancestry. At the May 12, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile court found no reason to know that the children were Indian children and thus ICWA did not apply. The children were detained from mother’s custody. At a July 28, 2020, hearing, father appeared before the juvenile court and was deemed the presumed father of the children. Father submitted an ICWA-020 form indicating that he did not have Indian ancestry. In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed July 24, 2020, mother reported that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals