86 Cal.App.5th 130
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Juvenile court terminated mother W.E.’s parental rights to her daughter A.C.; mother appealed claiming ICWA inquiry was inadequate.
- DCFS asked only the child’s parents about Indian ancestry; it did not ask the non-relative extended family member (NREFM) caregiver I.C. or other known maternal/paternal extended relatives.
- Mother, DCFS, and the child stipulated to a conditional affirmance with remand directing DCFS to further inquire of I.C. and available extended family members.
- The Court of Appeal accepted the stipulation and conditionally reversed and remanded, directing DCFS to interview the NREFM and available maternal and paternal relatives and report results; the termination order may be reinstated if no further inquiry/notice is warranted.
- The opinion rests on Welfare & Institutions Code §224.2 duties and appellate precedent holding that ICWA inquiry obligations require contacting extended family/others with an interest; a vigorous dissent argued the majority’s approach expands an unworkable inquiry duty and urged a more deferential substantial-evidence/abuse-of-discretion review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS satisfied ICWA inquiry duties under federal and California law (Welf. & Inst. Code §224.2) | DCFS (respondent) agreed remand was appropriate and must inquire further of NREFM and available extended family per §224.2(b) | Mother: DCFS failed to satisfy its inquiry duty because it only asked parents and not the NREFM or extended family | Court conditionally reversed and remanded: DCFS must interview I.C. (NREFM) and available maternal/paternal family and report; termination order reinstated if no further inquiry/notice required |
| Proper standard of review for ICWA-inquiry findings | DCFS stipulated; appellate precedent generally reviews ICWA findings for substantial evidence | Mother sought reversal for statutory noncompliance | Majority accepted parties’ stipulation and applied precedent favoring sufficiency/substantial-evidence review in discussion; did not adopt dissent’s preferred abuse-of-discretion framework |
| Scope of §224.2’s required inquiry—who qualifies as "extended family members" or "others who have an interest in the child" | DCFS conceded targeted further inquiry here (NREFM and available relatives); parties limited remand scope by stipulation | Mother argued broader statutory language supports inquiry of extended family/others; faulted DCFS for not doing so | Court directed limited, practical inquiry (NREFM and available maternal/paternal relatives); opinion recognizes broader statutory language but remands for specified additional contacts |
| Remedy when inquiry is incomplete—conditional reversal vs. affirmance | DCFS joined stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to correct inquiry omissions | Mother sought reversal of termination order due to ICWA noncompliance | Court accepted stipulated conditional reversal and remand; ordered DCFS to report results and reinstated termination if no further steps needed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.V., 75 Cal.App.5th 433 (addresses ICWA inquiry obligations and reversal for inadequate inquiry)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (discusses scope of ICWA inquiry duties)
- In re Dezi C., 79 Cal.App.5th 769 (criticizes automatic reversal approach; review granted)
- In re Ezequiel G., 81 Cal.App.5th 984 (advocates abuse-of-discretion review and critiques expansive literal readings of §224.2)
- In re Rashad H., 78 Cal.App.4th 376 (standards for stipulated reversal and remand)
- In re J.W., 29 Cal.4th 200 (statutory interpretation principle: avoid absurd results)
- In re M.B., 80 Cal.App.5th 617 (upholds use of conditional reversal/stipulated remand to secure ICWA compliance)