Filed 10/10/22 In re D.E. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE In re D.E., a Person Coming B317690 Under the Juvenile Court (Los Angeles County Law. Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP03544) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.K., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha Matthews, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________ D.K. (mother) appeals from juvenile court orders denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 2881 petition and terminating parental rights as to D.E., who was three years old at the time. Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court’s orders must be reversed because the juvenile court had information that triggered a further duty to inquire about D.E.’s status as an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). (See § 224.2, subd. (e)(1).) Based on our opinion in In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 888-889 (Austin J.), we disagree with mother’s assertion. We will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Because mother’s only contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by failing to order a further inquiry into D.E.’s status as an Indian child under ICWA, we limit our discussion of the background here to facts related to that contention. 1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 2 The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300 on June 4, 2018 alleging that D.E., who was two months old at the time, came under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. DCFS attached a Judicial Council Form ICWA-010(A) to the petition stating that it had made an Indian child inquiry. DCFS checked a box beside the words, “The child may have Indian ancestry,” but did not check any other boxes on the form. In its detention report, DCFS stated that D.E.’s father, who is not a party to this appeal, “reported that his great grandmother has Native American Indian ancestry but reported that he does not know what tribe.” On June 5, 2018, father filed a Judicial Council form ICWA-020 and checked a box beside the words, “I may have Indian ancestry.” The form provided no other information regarding D.E.’s potential Indian ancestry. Father did not check a box next to the words, “I am or may be a member of, or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals