47 Cal.App.5th 303
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Two children (11-year-old A.M. and 6-year-old J.T.) were detained after allegations that Mother allowed them to be with an 18-year-old who sexually abused them; Mother tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Petition filed Dec. 5, 2017 under Welf. & Inst. Code §300; children ultimately placed with paternal grandmother in Nevada and thrived there.
- Mother initially was unsure about American Indian ancestry, later reported possible Blackfoot and Cherokee affiliation and listed a maternal grandfather (C.M.) as having Indian ancestry but provided no tribe registration or concrete identifying details.
- DPSS mailed ICWA notices to the BIA in Dec. 2017; BIA returned notices as lacking sufficient information to identify a tribe; DPSS could not locate maternal relatives (both maternal grandparents deceased) or obtain additional ICWA leads.
- Reunification services were terminated; at the combined §366.26/§388 hearing on Sept. 6, 2019 the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights; Mother appealed arguing failures under ICWA and the UCCJEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DPSS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICWA compliance: whether DPSS failed to make adequate inquiry and give proper notice (omission of maternal grandfather and failure to notify Blackfeet/Cherokee) | DPSS: inquiries and notices were adequate under current law; Mother’s vague statements did not give the agency or court "reason to know" the children were Indian children, and DPSS could not locate relatives to develop further leads. | Mother: DPSS omitted maternal grandfather (C.M.) from ICWA-030 and failed to send notices to Blackfeet and Cherokee after she reported possible ancestry, so notice/inquiry obligations were violated. | Affirmed. Court found DPSS’s inquiry sufficient; Mother’s statements amounted to family lore insufficient to establish "reason to know" under current ICWA standards, and no available relatives or new information existed to require additional notice. |
| UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction: whether California lacked home-state jurisdiction and DPSS should have contacted Nevada or Arizona courts | DPSS: California had jurisdiction under Family Code §3421 (home-state/significant connections) and alternatively had temporary emergency jurisdiction under §3424; no evidence of a pending Nevada/Arizona custody proceeding requiring communication. | Mother: California was not the children’s home state on Dec. 5, 2017; Nevada or Arizona should have been contacted and California lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. | Affirmed. Court concluded California had jurisdiction (home-state or emergency); parents’ vague, unverified references to out-of-state proceedings were insufficient to defeat jurisdiction or require contacting those states; any UCCJEA error would be harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (ICWA imposes an affirmative, continuing duty to inquire; termination order subsumes a present ICWA inquiry)
- In re J.L., 10 Cal.App.5th 913 (2017) (standard of review for undisputed ICWA facts; inquiry obligations)
- In re J.D., 189 Cal.App.4th 118 (2010) (ICWA notice must include detailed ancestral information to allow tribal identification)
- In re A.W., 38 Cal.App.5th 655 (2019) (discussion of pre-amendment ICWA inquiry/notice standards)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (2014) (UCCJEA home-state rules; reversal where foreign home state unquestionably existed)
- In re Cristian I., 224 Cal.App.4th 1088 (2014) (UCCJEA jurisdictional framework and analysis)
- In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (2018) (further inquiry required when minimal parental disclosures give reason to believe Indian ancestry)
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (2000) (no obligation under ICWA to "cast about" for leads when none exist)