Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shahida R.
241 Cal. App. 4th 1376
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dept. received referral that mother Shahida had relapsed to methamphetamine and marijuana use while caring for six-month-old Kadence; Shahida had a long history of substance abuse and prior dependency cases involving older children in Nevada.
- Shahida repeatedly missed, refused, or produced invalid/diluted drug tests; Nevada reunification services had been terminated for noncompliance.
- Father Robert was alleged to have recently committed a violent assault, and the amended dependency petition alleged both parents’ conduct placed Kadence at risk under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.
- Court detained Kadence and placed her with a paternal aunt; at the March 10, 2015 adjudication the juvenile court sustained the petition, found Shahida’s substance abuse and mental health problems placed Kadence at risk, removed Kadence, and ordered reunification services.
- During proceedings various family members reported possible Blackfeet, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee ancestry; the court found no reason to know Kadence was an Indian child as to Blackfeet/other lines but ordered notice to the Cherokee tribe; later the court adjudicated/disposed before full tribal notice and response timelines were completed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdiction/disposition on the merits as supported by substantial evidence, but remanded for ICWA compliance and directed notice to Blackfeet, Creek, and Seminole tribes (and to confirm prior Cherokee notice) and possible further proceedings if the child is found to be an Indian child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under §300(b) based on Shahida’s substance abuse and mental illness | Shahida: No evidence of current drug use; Kadence was healthy so no present risk | Dept./court: Missed/refused/invalid drug tests, prior removals, and noncompliance permit inference of ongoing use and present risk to an infant | Court: Affirmed — missed/avoidance of tests and history constitute substantial evidence of current substance abuse and risk to child |
| Whether juvenile court complied with ICWA notice and inquiry duties | Shahida/Robert: Court failed to comply with ICWA; insufficient inquiry/notice to tribes (Blackfeet, Creek, Seminole, Cherokee) before adjudication/disposition | Dept./court: Family reports were vague/remote; some ancestry claims uncertain or unsupported | Court: Reversed in part — remand required for ICWA compliance; directed notice to Blackfeet, Creek, Seminole; Cherokee notice already sent so no further remand on receipt fact, but disposition premature without full ICWA process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (discussing incorporation of ICWA into California law and the BIA Guidelines as persuasive)
- In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (missed drug tests may be treated as equivalent to a positive test for jurisdiction)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (court need not wait until actual injury; past conduct may support present jurisdiction)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (parental substance abuse with young children creates prima facie evidence of inability to provide regular care)
- In re B.H., 241 Cal.App.4th 603 (parental report of tribal ancestry can trigger ICWA notice requirements)
- In re Jennifer A., 103 Cal.App.4th 692 (ICWA notice requirements apply even when placement is with relatives rather than nonrelative foster care)