Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ashlee R.

The federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) provides: “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a).) This notice requirement, which is also codified in California law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2; all undesignated statutory references are to this code), enables a tribe to determine whether the child is an Indian child and, if so, whether to intervene in or exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding may be held until at least 10 days after the tribe receives the required notice. ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a); see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (d).)

In this case, a juvenile court removed newborn Isaiah W. from his parents’ care and placed him in foster care. In that proceeding, the…

Dissenting.—I agree with the Court of Appeal in this case and In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 819 ], As with all child dependency matters, issues concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) should be resolved as early in the process as possible. Permitting a party to delay an appeal that could have been taken *16 earlier does not further the purposes behind the ICWA and can substantially harm the child. Accordingly, and unlike the majority, I would not carve out an exception for ICWA issues to the general California rule in dependency matters requiring an issue to be raised on appeal at the first opportunity.

Mother Ashlee R. (mother) could have, and should have, raised the issue under the ICWA by appeal after the January 2012 jurisdictional and disposi-tional hearing, but she did not do so. In child dependency cases, it is settled in California that a parent must appeal an issue at the earliest opportunity or forfeit the right to raise the issue later. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 , 116 P.3d 550 ].) The reason for this rule is compelling. It is necessary to fulfill the…