Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Lydia O.
8 Cal. App. 5th 636
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Breanna (9) and David (4) were made dependents after repeated domestic violence between parents Lydia and Jesse, and Jesse’s substance abuse; children were placed with maternal relatives and prospective adoptive caregivers.
- Lydia’s visitation was sporadic over the 18-month dependency; she completed some services but not substance abuse or mental health treatment; she resumed a relationship with Jesse.
- The juvenile court found children likely adoptable, denied the parent–child relationship exception to termination of parental rights under Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i), and ordered termination of parental rights with adoption as the permanent plan.
- Lydia appealed the denial of the parent–child relationship exception; Jesse (joined by Lydia) appealed the Department’s failure to comply with ICWA notice requirements.
- Lydia and a maternal relative reported possible Yaqui (and Apache) ancestry through the children’s maternal great‑grandmother; the Department sent ICWA notices to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Secretary but omitted some required biographical details from the notices.
- The court held the parent–child exception did not apply but concluded the Department’s ICWA notice was deficient and remanded for further inquiry and re‑notice; the termination order was conditionally affirmed pending compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lydia proved the parent–child relationship exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) | Lydia: maintained regular visitation and strong bond entitling children to remain with her | County: visitation was sporadic, parents didn’t occupy a parental role; adoption favored child’s stability | Held: Lydia failed to prove regular visitation or that the relationship outweighed benefit of adoption; exception not met |
| Whether Department satisfied federal/state ICWA notice content requirements | Jesse/Lydia: notices omitted required biographical details for maternal relatives, undermining tribe’s ability to assess membership | Department: omissions were a mistake but harmless because Pascua Yaqui responded children ineligible based on provided data; some omitted details were not known | Held: Department omitted information it possessed; error violated ICWA/state law; remand required for further inquiry and re‑notice |
| Standard for harmlessness of ICWA notice errors | Jesse/Lydia: omissions may be prejudicial because tribe must receive full information to assess membership | Department: tribe already concluded non‑membership; omissions unlikely to change outcome | Held: failures to meet federal ICWA notice requirements are ordinarily prejudicial; here omissions implicated maternal great‑grandparent info, so re‑notice required rather than harmlessness finding |
| Who determines tribal membership and relevance of tribal membership rules | Lydia/Jesse: tribe must decide membership; court should not assume membership disqualification based on tribal rules | Department: Pascua Yaqui constitution suggests blood quantum would exclude children, making omissions immaterial | Held: Tribe has exclusive authority to determine membership; courts should not decide membership or apply tribal constitution in first instance — tribe must be provided full information to evaluate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B., 46 Cal.4th 529 (discusses preference for adoption and § 366.26 framework)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (describes two‑part § 366.26 inquiry and adoption preference)
- In re Marcelo B., 209 Cal.App.4th 635 (explains parent–child relationship exception requirements)
- In re Anthony B., 239 Cal.App.4th 389 (holds sporadic visitation insufficient for parent–child exception)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (ICWA purpose and importance of tribal notice/inquiry)
- In re Kadence P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1376 (tribe, not court, determines membership eligibility)
- In re D.N., 218 Cal.App.4th 1246 (harmless‑error analysis for ICWA notice deficiencies)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribal authority over membership determinations)