Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. A.M. (In re A.M.)

• Decision Date: 05 March 2020
• Docket Number: E073805
• Citation: 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 412,47 Cal.App.5th 303
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.M., Defendant and Appellant.

47 Cal.App.5th 303

260 Cal.Rptr.3d 412

IN RE A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.A.M., Defendant and Appellant.

E073805

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Filed March 5, 2020

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

John L. Dodd, Tustin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand, and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CODRINGTON, Acting P. J.

IINTRODUCTION

A.M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her two children, 11-year-old A.M. and six-year-old J.T., Jr. (J.T.).¹ On appeal, Mother argues (1) the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed because the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. ) and with Welfare and Institutions Code ² section 224 et seq ; and (2) all orders must be reversed because the juvenile court failed to comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because California did not have subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons explained herein, we reject Mother’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

IIFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2017, DPSS received an immediate response referral with allegations of general neglect and sexual abuse. It was reported that Mother had allowed her two sons to go into a hotel room for hours with an 18-year-old male stranger who sexually abused them. After Mother discovered the sexual abuse, she failed to report the alleged crime to law enforcement. Instead, the suspect disclosed what he had done to his mother, who then drove the suspect to the police station to turn himself in.

When the social worker interviewed the boys, A.M. disclosed that he attended the third grade at an elementary school in Beaumont, but could not recall the last time he had attended school. He and J.T. had previously lived "with their father someplace far away as well." A.M. "believed they were living in Los Angeles with his father." They had "lived in a number of homes with friends." A.M. also reported Mother did not have much money so they had stayed in more than five or six homes with people willing to help them, "and all while he was eight years old." He and his family moved into their present hotel two days prior, but previously had lived with "various friends, family members of friends, and people they did not know before." A.M. also disclosed several incidents of domestic violence involving Mother and her significant other. J.T. stated that he "reside[d] with friends, his mother, his brother, his dad, ‘Uncle Grandpa,’ and ‘Batman.’ "

The social worker also interviewed and drug tested Mother due to her behavior. Mother drug tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine

. Mother admitted to smoking methamphetamine. She reported that she had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and was not on medication. When asked about her residence plan, Mother stated that she and her boys will stay with a friend in Victorville or she will find another place to go for the night. Her safety network consisted only of J.L., also known as " ‘Batman,’ " because her former foster family "moved out of state and abandoned her and the children." Mother also had a few friends who helped her by giving she and her sons a place to stay for a few days. Due to concerns for the children’s safety, J.T. and A.M. were taken into protective custody.

When questioned about the children’s placement, Mother informed the social worker that J.T.’s father resided in Arizona and is the only father A.M. had ever known.³ Mother reported there was a family law case open in Las Vegas, Nevada. Father J.T. did not bring the boys back to Mother on time after a visit earlier this year. Mother did not believe Father J.T. could care for the children, because he was not stable and had a problem with alcohol.

The social worker thereafter contacted Father J.T. He stated that he lived in Arizona with relatives but was unable to provide a physical address, because he had just moved in. He and the paternal grandmother had been primarily caring for the children since they were babies. The children were with his mother for more than a year and with him for approximately five months in Las Vegas earlier this year. He also stated that Mother came to get A.M. and left with both children after a visit and that Mother has had the children in her care for only a few months. Father J.T. admitted having a drug and alcohol history and wanted the children to be released to him. He also agreed to contact the paternal grandmother to discuss possible placement of the children in her care.

On December 5, 2017, a petition was filed on behalf of the children pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to support), (d) (sexual abuse), and (g) (no provision for support).

Regarding ICWA, Mother was "unsure if she [was] of American Indian descent" and "denied that she or the children [were] registered with a tribe." Fathers J.T. and R.O. denied American Indian ancestry. At the detention hearing, both Mother and Father J.T. indicated having no American Indian ancestry. However, in Mother’s ICWA-020 form, she checked the box indicating that she was or may be a member of, or eligible for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe and wrote the tribe’s name as "unknown." She also checked the box indicating that one or more of her parents, grandparents, or other lineal ancestors is or was a member of a federally recognized tribe and wrote "MGF, MGA[C.M.]" beside the box. In Father J.T.’s ICWA-020 form, he stated that he had no Indian ancestry.

On December 6, 2017, the juvenile court formally removed the children from parental custody and found that ICWA may apply. The court authorized an Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC) with the state of Arizona and directed DPSS to continue with their assessment of relatives for placement.

On December 15, 2017, DPSS filed an ICWA-030 Notice of Child Custody Proceeding (ICWA notice) as to each child. In the ICWA notice, DPSS included each child’s name, date and place of birth, and attached each child’s birth certificate. The ICWA notices also included Mother’s name, former address, and date and place of birth, as well as Father J.T.’s name, former address, and date and place of birth. As to A.M., the ICWA notice included Father R.O.’s name, current address, and date of birth. Place of birth is indicated as "Unknown." Under the tribe box for Mother, the ICWA notices stated, "Bureau of Indian Affairs [ (BIA) ], No Tribe Specified." Under the tribe box for Father J.T. and Father R.O., the ICWA notices stated, "Does not apply." The ICWA notices also included the maternal grandmother’s and maternal grandfather’s names, former addresses, dates and places of birth, and dates and places of death. No tribe was specified for either maternal grandparent. The ICWA notices further noted the paternal grandmother’s name (Father J.T.’s mother), current address and birth date. Under tribe, DPSS noted "Does not apply." No information was provided as to A.M.’s paternal grandmother or either childs’ paternal grandfather. "M.T." is noted to be J.T.’s maternal great-grandmother with a current address of Los Angeles, California. No additional information was provided as to the children’s maternal great-grandparents or Mother’s grandfather’s name (C.M.), or either child’s paternal great-grandparents.

DPSS mailed the ICWA notices by certified mail on December 14, 2017, to the BIA. On December 29, 2017, the BIA acknowledged receipt of the ICWA notices and indicated that it is returning the "letter of inquiry due to insufficient information to determine tribal affiliation ( 25 CFR 23.11 (d) ) or you have not identified a tribe. When additional information becomes available, please forward the Notice to the appropriate tribe(s) using the latest ICWA Designated Tribal Agents List."

On December 21, 2017, Mother informed the social worker that "she was told that she has Blackfoot and Cherokee tribe affiliation but was not registered." She also stated that she "planned to register with them on the day of contact." The social worker attempted to assist Mother in obtaining the contact information for the tribes so Mother could register but was unable to find such information. The social worker informed Mother that if she was "found to have affiliation with the tribes, she could be appointed an attorney from the tribes and placement of the children could change."

Mother disclosed that she was raised in the foster care system due to her biological parents not being involved in her life. She was placed in legal guardianship at the age of 18 months until she was 11 years old, and then was placed in group homes until she was emancipated from the system. She moved to Arizona in 2009 and remained there until August 29, 2016. She had been diagnosed with bipolar, depression, and ADHD, and had been prescribed multiple psychotropic medications.

Father J.T. reported that he was born in California, moving to Arizona shortly after his birth, returning to California for the second half of high school. He met Mother in 2009 and they moved in together with his family in 2011 until the end of their relationship in 2014. Mother then moved out and became a transient, while he kept the children. In the summer of 2017, Mother took the children back to California with her. He contacted law enforcement but "was informed he had no grounds to claim she kidnap[ped the children] since there was no court order from family law." He reported that he "filed the paperwork but was unable to follow...