In re J.A. CA3

Filed 5/30/23 In re J.A. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----

In re J.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C097054
Court Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. JV2020-
SERVICES AGENCY, 0221-1 & JV2020-0221-2
)
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.A. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellants J.B. (mother) and J.A. (father), the parents of the minors, Jo.A. and
C.A. (the minors), appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and
freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 395.) The parents

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1
contend: (1) the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) and the
juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because the Agency did not contact extended family
members to inquire about the ICWA (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.); and (2) the
juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) (UCCJEA).
We conditionally affirm subject to full compliance with the ICWA on remand .
We find the UCCJEA issue forfeited.
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2020, the Agency filed a petition alleging that Jo.A. (age three)
and C.A. (age 15 months) came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
failure to protect, and section 300, subdivision (d), sexual abuse. The minors were
detained pursuant to a protective custody warrant. The petition alleged that the minors
were at risk of physical and sexual abuse because their father was a registered sex
offender who had been accused of molesting multiple children, including the minors’ half
sibling. The petition alleged that mother had failed to protect the minors because she was
aware of the abuse but continued to live with father and allowed father to have contact
with the minors.
The parents and the minors lived in Washington until father’s conviction in
California for contacting a minor, his daughter, with the intent of committing a sexual
act. Following father’s conviction, mother moved to California with the minors to be
with him because he was not allowed to return to Washington. The Agency became
aware of father’s conviction about three weeks later.

2
 In a November 3, 2020, detention report, the Agency reported that father had
heard of possible Cherokee or Blackfeet ancestry on his paternal side.2 Father denied
knowing any other relatives who might have more information. Mother and her counsel
denied that mother had any Native American ancestry. The minors were detained.
At the jurisdiction hearing on December 16, 2020, county counsel stated that
father had reported Native American ancestry but the only person who would know
details was deceased. She requested that the parents identify any additional relatives who
could provide further information. The parents’ respective counsel did not raise any
issues regarding the UCCJEA.
In a January 4, 2021, disposition report, the Agency reported that mother
completed an ICWA-20 form denying any Native American ancestry. Father completed
an ICWA-20 form, stating that he had Klamath and Cherokee ancestry. Mother told the
social worker that she loved father but was willing to separate from him if necessary.
She indicated she would leave California and return to Washington to live with her
parents if the minors were returned to her. Father indicated he would move to
Washington to be with them after the end of his probation. The Agency recommended
bypassing father for reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16).
On February 8, 2021, the juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction and
disposition hearing and addressed the ICWA issue. The court advised that the Agency
should provide notice to the Cherokee, Blackfeet and Klamath tribes. Father informed
the court that his grandmother, grandfather, and father all had Native American ancestry.
Father gave a possible name for his grandmother. He stated that his mother (paternal

2 Although father used the term “Blackfoot” throughout the case, we note: “[T]here is
frequently confusion between the Blackfeet tribe, which is federally recognized, and the
related Blackfoot tribe, which is found in Canada and thus not entitled to notice of
dependency proceedings. When Blackfoot heritage is claimed, part of the Agency’s duty
of inquiry is to clarify whether the parent is actually claiming Blackfoot or Blackfeet
heritage.” (In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198.)

3
grandmother) would have more information about the family names and history, and the
social worker indicated she had the name and contact information for the paternal
grandmother. Father clarified that any Native American ancestry was through his father
who was deceased. Father believed that his father was a part of the Klamath tribe.
Father also believed his grandfather had Blackfeet heritage because he did research
showing that the Klamath Falls Indians were a branch of the Blackfeet tribe. He reported
both of his grandparents were deceased. The court advised that the ICWA inquiry should
continue. The parents’ respective counsel did not raise any issues regarding the
UCCJEA.
At the continued contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing on March 10, 2021,
neither mother nor father made any objections to the court’s ability to take jurisdiction
and never raised the issue of the UCCJEA or Washington as a more appropriate venue.
The juvenile court sustained the amended petition, took jurisdiction, ordered family
reunification services to mother, and bypassed father for services. The paternal
grandmother was with mother, both who appeared by video during the hearing, but
paternal grandmother was not asked about the minors’ potential Native American
heritage. The court authorized the Agency to request an Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children (ICPC) evaluation for the maternal grandparents in Washington.
On June 23, 2021, the Agency filed a section 388 petition, asking to suspend
mother’s in-person visits after the elder minor, Jo.A., disclosed sexual abuse by mother.
At a hearing on July 7, 2021, mother’s counsel said that mother was living in Washington
in connection with her request to appear remotely. Counsel did not raise any issues
regarding the UCCJEA or jurisdiction. The court suspended mother’s in-person
visitation and also reduced visits. At the six-month review hearing on September 29,
2021, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a selection and
implementation hearing.

4
 On January 26, 2022, the Agency reported that the social worker contacted father
to obtain more information about the ICWA, but father had not yet responded to the
social worker’s contact. The court ordered father to complete an ICWA-20 form. On
February 2, 2022, the Agency reported that father continued refusing to respond. Father
then advised the juvenile court that he would not return the ICWA-20 form. The court
again ordered father to fill out the ICWA-20 form, under penalty of contempt, and to
meet with the social worker to discuss ICWA issues. On April 12, 2022, the Agency
reported father had still not provided the necessary information, and the Agency intended
to send the Bureau of Indian Affairs the limited information it had.
On June 24, 2022, the Agency filed an addendum report, listing its attempts to
contact father. On March 3, 2022, father told the social worker that no living relatives
were members of any tribe, and he could not provide information on where relatives were
born, died, or if they lived on a reservation. The social worker called multiple phone
numbers for the paternal grandmother, but the phone numbers were disconnected or no
longer belonged to her. The Agency also reported that it sent notice to the tribes with the
information it had, and all but two of the tribes responded that the minors were not
eligible for membership. The Klamath and Blackfeet tribes had not responded, so the
Agency sought a continuance. On August 31, 2022, the Agency filed another addendum
report, adding the Blackfeet tribe’s letter stating the minors were not eligible for
membership.
At the contested section 366.26 hearing on September 21, 2022, the juvenile court
found the minors adoptable, determined no statutory exceptions to adoption were
applicable, entered a finding that the ICWA did not apply, and terminated parental rights.

5
 DISCUSSION
I
The ICWA
The parents contend that the Agency and the juvenile court failed to comply with
their initial duty of inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (b). The Agency responds
that the inquiry was adequate, and any error was harmless. We disagree with the Agency.
As this court recently explained: “ ‘The ICWA protects the interests of Indian
children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum
standards for removal of Indian children from their families, and by permitting tribal
participation in dependency proceedings. [Citations.] A major purpose of the ICWA is
to protect “Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an
Indian tribe.” [Citation.]’ (In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 662.) The ICWA
defines an ‘ “Indian child” ’ as a child who ‘is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or
(b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member
of an Indian tribe.’ (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) The juvenile court and the social services
department have an affirmative and continuing duty, beginning at initial contact, to
inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).)” (In re G.A. (2022) 81
Cal.App.5th 355, 360, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056.)3
“[S]ection 224.2 creates three distinct duties regarding ICWA in dependency
proceedings. First, from the Agency’s initial contact with a minor and his [or her] family,
the statute imposes a duty of inquiry to ask all involved persons whether the child may be
an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subds. (a), (b).) Second, if that initial inquiry creates a ‘reason
to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then the Agency ‘shall make further inquiry

3 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1), we cite and discuss In re G.A.,
supra, 81 Cal.App.5th 355, review granted, solely for its “persuasive value.”

6
regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as
practicable.’ (Id., subd. (e), italics added.) Third, if that further inquiry results in a
reason to know the child is an Indian child, then the formal notice requirements of section
224.3 apply. (See § 224.2, subd. (c) [court is obligated to inquire at the first appearance
whether anyone ‘knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child’]; id.,
subd. (d) [defining circumstances that establish a ‘reason to know’ a child is an Indian
child]; § 224.3 [ICWA notice is required if there is a ‘reason to know’ a child is an Indian
child as defined under § 224.2, subd. (d)].)” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041,
1052.) We review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s Native American ancestry
for substantial evidence. (In re Rebecca R. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1430.)
The parents cite section 224.2, subdivision (b), which imposes a more extensive
duty to inquire about Indian ancestry if a child is placed in the temporary custody of a
welfare department (§ 306) or probation department (§ 307): “Inquiry 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.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).)
The Agency acknowledges it did not ask the paternal grandmother or any of
mother’s extended family members about Indian heritage even though some of these
relatives were known to the Agency. The Agency argues that any error is harmless
because the record does not support a reason to believe that the minors may be an
“ ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA, such that the absence of further inquiry
was prejudicial.” (In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 779, review granted
Sept. 21, 2022, S275578; see id. at pp. 779-782.)4 Recently, our Supreme Court granted
review in Dezi C., and we anticipate further clarification on this issue. Until such time,

4 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1), we cite and discuss In re Dezi
C., supra, 79 Cal.App.5th 769, review granted, solely for its “persuasive value.”

7
we conclude that given the remedial purpose underlying the ICWA and related California
law intended to protect third party rights, we apply the analytical framework set forth by
the California Supreme Court in In re A.R. for assessing harm, and we conclude the error
is prejudicial. (In re A.R. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 234, 252-254 [determining whether an error
is prejudicial requires viewing the error through the lens of the remedial purpose of the
law at issue].)
Due to changes in California law over the past few years, agencies now have a
broader duty of inquiry and a duty of documentation (§ 224.2, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)), and courts have been tasked with determining how to assess
error when the agency fails to discharge its now-broad duty of inquiry. Agencies have
often conceded error and, therefore, disposition of the issue on appeal has turned on
whether the error was prejudicial. Although reviewing courts generally agree that
reversal is dependent on showing prejudice or a miscarriage of justice, approaches for
assessing prejudice have varied. (See, e.g., In re E.V. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 691, 698; In
re Dezi C., supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 779, review granted; In re J.C. (2022)
77 Cal.App.5th 70, 80; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744; In re A.C.
(2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1069.) In this court’s prior decision addressing this issue,
In re G.A., supra, 81 Cal.App.5th 355, review granted, the parents both repeatedly denied
Indian ancestry and the record showed that the child welfare agency attempted to contact
other family members, but they were not responsive. (Id. at pp. 359, 362.) The mother
there claimed that to demonstrate prejudice, she needed to show only “ ‘there were
sources of information readily available to respondent that were not consulted.’ ” (Id. at
p. 362.) We rejected her contention and determined that the evidence derived from the
initial inquiry “ ‘was sufficient for a reliable determination’ ” and the agency had no duty
to inquire beyond that which it did. (Id. at p. 363.)
Here, in contrast to In re G.A., there is no indication that the Agency made any
effort to inquire of any accessible maternal relatives regarding the minor’s ancestry, even

8
though the maternal grandparents were evaluated under the ICPC. Instead, it relied
exclusively on mother’s representations to satisfy its duty of inquiry as to the maternal
side. In further contrast to In re G.A., one parent here (the father) reported possible
Native American heritage. While the Agency made several failed attempts to contact the
paternal grandmother with incorrect phone numbers, the Agency was also aware that the
paternal grandmother lived with the parents and did not list any attempt to reach her by
another method, such as by calling the parents. Finally, the record shows the paternal
grandmother was on the video conference for a hearing, just one month after father
named her as the only living person in his family with information about possible Native
American ancestry. But it does not appear the Agency or the juvenile court asked the
paternal grandmother about Native American ancestry. Additionally, because the minors
were taken into protective custody, section 224.2, subdivision (b) applies, and a
heightened duty of inquiry—including inquiry of extended family members—applies.
Because the Agency and juvenile court failed to discharge the initial inquiry duty as to
the maternal relatives and the paternal grandmother, we will conditionally affirm but
remand for ICWA compliance.
II
The UCCJEA
Father and mother contend for the first time on appeal that reversal of the
dispositional and jurisdictional orders is required because the juvenile court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The Agency contends the issue is
forfeited because the parents failed to appeal prior orders or raise an objection in the
juvenile court. We agree the issue is forfeited.
The UCCJEA “governs dependency proceedings and is the exclusive method for
determining the proper forum to decide custody issues involving a child who is subject to
a sister-state custody order.” (In re Cristian I. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1096.)
“The UCCJEA is a model law that ‘arose out of a conference of states in an attempt to

9
deal with the problems of competing jurisdictions entering conflicting interstate child
custody orders, forum shopping, and the drawn out and complex child custody legal
proceedings often encountered by parties where multiple states are involved.’
[Citations.]” (In re J.W. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 347, 354-355 (J.W.).) It is designed to
avoid jurisdictional conflicts between states and relitigation of custody decisions,
promote cooperation between states, and facilitate enforcement of another state’s custody
decrees. (In re Gloria A. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 476, 482.) “The UCCJEA is the
exclusive method in California to determine the proper forum in child custody
proceedings involving other jurisdictions.” (In re Jaheim B. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th
1343, 1348.) “[A]s with any statute, interpretation of the UCCJEA is a question of law
we review de novo.” (Schneer v. Llaurado (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1287.)
Generally, if a parent does not appeal a disposition or postdisposition order, those
orders are “final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later
appealable order.” (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150.) The forfeiture
rule services the vital policy consideration of finality and prevents “late-stage ‘sabotage
of the process’ through a parent’s attacks on earlier orders.” (In re Jesse W. (2001)
93 Cal.App.4th 349, 355, quoting In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 207.) The
parents nevertheless contend that the question of whether a UCCJEA claim may be
forfeited is unsettled and this court should exercise its discretion to consider the issue
despite the parents’ failure to raise it in the trial court.
In J.W., similar to the facts presented here, the mother moved to California from
Louisiana a few weeks prior to the detention hearing. (J.W., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at
p. 353.) No one, including the mother or father or their counsel, raised the question of
whether there was jurisdiction under the UCCJEA at any point during the proceedings.
(Id. at pp. 353-354.) Just as here, the father raised the UCCJEA issue for the first time on
appeal from a termination of parental rights and argued that all findings and orders made
by the juvenile court must be reversed. (Id. at pp. 353, 355.) In addressing the question

10
of forfeiture, the court of appeal reasoned that: “The UCCJEA . . . embodies an
agreement among states on rules to determine which jurisdiction should provide the
proper forum. [Citations.] Because it is a mandatory rule, a court errs when it does not
satisfy the requirements of the UCCJEA, and a preserved error can lead to reversal.
[Citations.] But where, as here, the UCCJEA is not raised in the juvenile court, it can be
forfeited just like other important, mandatory rules. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 358, citing
Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330 [distinguishing fundamental
jurisdiction from mandatory jurisdictional rules and concluding that issues regarding the
latter may be forfeited].) The court further reasoned that the Legislature did not intend
the UCCJEA, as a forum selection statute, to create fundamental jurisdiction: “In
dependency law, our Legislature has placed a particular emphasis on the need to make
orders terminating parental rights final. This leads us to conclude that . . . the Legislature
did not intend to make UCCJEA jurisdiction a matter of fundamental jurisdiction on top
of the fundamental jurisdiction established by . . . section 300 in standard dependency
cases. Specifically, . . . section 366.26, subdivision (i) prohibits virtually all collateral
attacks on termination orders, evincing a clear intent to restrict their review. But equating
UCCJEA jurisdiction with fundamental jurisdiction would constitute a wide exception to
the finality afforded by this provision, as a meritorious claim of UCCJEA error could
undo a termination order despite the failure to raise the issue in juvenile court.” (J.W., at
p. 360.) We agree with the reasoning of J.W. and conclude that the UCCJEA does not
regulate a California trial court’s fundamental jurisdiction and may therefore be forfeited
by a failure to raise the issue in juvenile court.
In a recently published decision, In re L.C. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 728, 738 (L.C.),
the court of appeal distinguished J.W. on its facts but did not disagree with its reasoning:
“Even if it is true that the UCCJEA does not concern issues of fundamental jurisdiction
that cannot be forfeited, In re J.W. says nothing about whether there are other reasons
why the forfeiture doctrine should not apply to the UCCJEA issue raised in this appeal.”

11
In L.C., the mother reported she and her children were visiting San Diego from Florida
and that she intended to return to Florida in a few days. (Id. at p. 734.) Because the
mother listed a series of residences in different states and the child welfare agency found
possible dependency cases in those states, the agency noted at the outset of the case that
there were potential UCCJEA issues in Florida, Texas, and Arizona. (Ibid.) Despite that
the mother said she was only visiting California with her children and despite that the
family had possibly dependency history in other states, the juvenile court did not
undertake the jurisdictional analysis required by the UCCJEA. (Ibid.) The Court of
Appeal reasoned that in light of these facts, “the usual benefit from the application of the
forfeiture doctrine—to encourage parties to bring issues to the trial court—would not be
conferred under the facts of this case.” (Id. at p. 738, italics omitted.)
In contrast, the minors here lived in California at the time of detention and
throughout the case and were noted to have California Medi-Cal insurance at the outset of
the case. Father lived in California prior to the case opening and was required to remain
in California as a condition of his probation. There was no evidence of custody
proceedings involving these minors in Washington.5 Mother initially expressed interest
in moving back to Washington—and did move to Washington temporarily during the
pendency of the case; mother later stated she planned to move back to California.
Here, neither parent appealed the findings and orders of the juvenile court made at
the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on March 10, 2021, or any subsequent
hearings before this one. Additionally, the parents never raised the question of whether
the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. We conclude
the parents have forfeited their claims.

5 Father cites testimony about a child welfare investigation in Washington, but that was
an investigation of the safety of other children living in a home where mother was a
guest, following the allegations against mother of sexual abuse.

12
 DISPOSITION
The orders terminating parental rights are conditionally affirmed subject to full
compliance with the ICWA as described in this opinion. If, on remand, the juvenile court
determines the ICWA applies, the court shall vacate its previous orders terminating
parental rights and conduct further proceedings consistent with the ICWA, including a
new section 366.26 hearing. (25 U.S.C. § 1914; § 224, subd. (e).)

/s/
MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/
RENNER, J.

13