In re A.F.
D072226
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- A.F., a four-month-old Indian child of the Campo Band, was removed from her parents after Leah's death and placed in protective custody.
- The Tribe intervened and recommended not placing A.F. with either parent, with initial preference for Liesha D. (maternal cousin) on the Tribe's reservation.
- By Jan 4, 2017, A.F. was placed with Liesha, and the Agency recommended continued placement with Liesha and reunification services for T.C.; W.F. denied reunification services.
- Donna F., the paternal grandmother, sought placement and the Tribe later indicated Liesha as preferred; visits with Donna were arranged and expanded.
- In a March 30, 2017 disposition, the court placed A.F. with Donna, finding both Donna and Liesha equally eligible under ICWA preferences, and noted no need for a good cause finding to deviate from the Tribe's preference.
- T.C. appeals arguing the court erred by not applying ICWA 361.31/25 U.S.C. 1915 and by requiring a good cause finding to deviate; the Agency and A.F.'s counsel support affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court followed ICWA 361.31/1915 and Tribe resolution in placement | T.C. asserts Tribe altered preferences, requiring good cause to deviate. | Agency contends Tribe did not modify default order; 361.31/1915 controls and was satisfied. | Placement with Donna complied with ICWA; Tribe's letter did not modify the default order. |
| Whether the court properly used section 361.3 factors when two relatives are equally preferred | T.C. argues court should have adhered to Tribe's preference with Liesha unless good cause shown. | Agency/A.F.'s counsel contend court could consider 361.3 factors and exercise independent judgment. | Court did not abuse discretion; 361.3 factors supported placement with Donna and were consistent with ICWA. |
| Whether the Tribe's preferred placement can be overridden without a good cause finding | T.C. contends good cause was required to deviate from the Tribe's preference. | Agency contends no good cause finding was necessary because Donna and Liesha are coequal under ICWA. | No good cause finding required to place A.F. with Donna; Tribe's preference treated as a factor, not a binding exclusive order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony T. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.4th 1019 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (ICWA placement framework and 361.31/1915 alignment; liberal construction in favor of tribal preferences)
- Isabella G. v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (framework for relative placement under 361.3; agency duties to assess relatives)
- In re Liliana S., 115 Cal.App.4th 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (tribal resolution and designation of specific relative under ICWA constraints)
- In re Julian B., 82 Cal.App.4th 1337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (limits of tribal resolutions selecting specific relatives)
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Brown, 229 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (statutory interpretation deference to administrative regulations)
- Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (ICWA purpose to protect Indian children and tribes)