In re K.C. CA2/3

── In re K.C. CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 In re K.C. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re K.C. et al., Persons Coming B345186 Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 22CCJP00042A, AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP00042B, 22CCJP00042C Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.J., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ashley Price, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________  Mother challenges the adequacy of notices the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and specific tribes in connection with her children’s dependency cases. She contends the Department’s failure to comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) requires reversal of the juvenile court’s ICWA findings and remand with instructions regarding the notices.1 We conclude the evidence supports the court’s ICWA findings and formal notice was not required. We affirm. BACKGROUND The sole issue raised in Mother’s appeal is ICWA compliance. We therefore focus on the facts bearing on this issue. Mother has three boys: K.C. (born December 2019); S.B. (born February 2022); and R.B. (born November 2022). A.P. (Father P.) is K.C.’s presumed father. Ri.B. (Father B.) is the presumed father of S.B. and R.B. The Department filed dependency petitions, alleging Mother and Father B. had a history of domestic violence that endangered the children. A later petition added allegations that Mother neglected the children. The juvenile court sustained the petitions and declared the children dependents. 1. Initial ICWA Inquiries Mother and Father B. each filed ICWA-020 forms for S.B. and R.B. stating the children had no known Indian ancestry. At the initial detention hearing for S.B., the court reviewed the 1 State statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 parents’ ICWA-020 forms and found there was no reason to know S.B. was an Indian child. At an early hearing for R.B., the court asked Father B. about the child’s possible Indian status. Father B. denied any Indian ancestry. Based on the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and the inquiry of Father B., the court found there was no reason to know R.B. was an Indian child. As for K.C., Mother filed an ICWA-020 form stating the child has no known Indian ancestry. At the initial detention hearing, the juvenile court reviewed the form and found ICWA did not apply to K.C. through Mother. The court also found Father P.—whose whereabouts were unknown—to be K.C.’s alleged father. After the Department completed its due diligence without locating Father P., the court made an initial finding that it had no information to believe ICWA applied to