In re D.E. CA2/1
Opinion
Opinion
Chaney, J.
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…