Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. V.M.
206 Cal. App. 4th 375
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother challenges termination of parental rights for J.M. and B.M. on ICWA notice adequacy grounds; father not party on appeal.
- ICWA notices to Papago tribe allegedly omitted great-great-grandparents’ names and J.M. was not named in notices.
- Department initially detained children in July 2010 for mother’s methamphetamine use and alleged neglect; mother did not consistently engage with services.
- Court found ICWA did not apply; later, after gathering maternal ancestry, notices were issued to tribes; J.M. was not named in notices initially.
- Tohono O’odham Nation (Papago) responded that J.M. and B.M. were not eligible for membership; tribe’s membership criteria are relevant to whether notices were adequate.
- Court held omissions harmless because great-great-grandparents are not required and the children are ineligible for Papago membership; siblings share the same maternal line.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICWA notice must include great-great-grandparents? | V.M. argues notices omitted great-great-grandparents’ names as to Papago heritage. | Department argues 224.2 does not require great-great-grandparents and notices were sufficient. | No error; not required, and harmless under circumstances. |
| Inclusion of J.M. in notices affected outcome? | Omission of J.M. could have affected eligibility determination. | Inclusion of J.M. would not change outcome since J.M. and B.M. share same maternal heritage. | Harmless error; failure to name J.M. did not affect results. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (ICWA notice sufficiency; need for substantial information about ancestors)
- In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 117 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (notice must include known information about ancestors; tribal enrollment info)
- In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 190 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (summary reversal where great-great-grandparent name crucial; distinguishable facts)
- In re Shane G. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1532, 166 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (tribal membership criteria may be judicially noticed; evidence of tribe’s criteria standard)
- In re E.W. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 396, 170 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (harmless error when sibling not named in notice)
- Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 190, 201 Cal.App.4th 190 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (tribal membership criteria can render omissions harmless)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) 436 U.S. 49, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (tribe defines its own membership; tribal sovereignty)