In re Antonio R., 76 Cal.App.5th 421

LA County DCFS received a neglect referral for 1‑year‑old Antonio; Mother completed ICWA‑020 denying Indian ancestry.
Social workers and the juvenile court questioned Mother, Father (later), and paternal great‑grandmother; each denied Indian ancestry.
The Department did not ask maternal extended family (maternal grandparents, aunts, uncle) — several of whom were present at hearings and later designated prospective adoptive parents — whether Antonio may be an Indian child.
Juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and later terminated parental rights; Mother appealed solely on ICWA inquiry/notice grounds.
The Court of Appeal held the Department and court erred by failing to inquire of maternal extended family under Welf. & Inst. Code §224.2(b), and that error was prejudicial because extended relatives likely possessed information meaningful to ICWA determination.
Disposition: conditional affirmance; case remanded for mandatory ICWA inquiry/notice. If, after compliance, there is no reason to believe Antonio is an Indian child, the termination order stands; if there is reason to believe, the order must be vacated and ICWA procedures followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department and juvenile court satisfied the initial ICWA inquiry duty by asking parents and a paternal great‑grandmother	Parents’ and paternal great‑grandmother’s denials gave sufficient basis to find ICWA inapplicable	Dept. and court should have asked maternal extended family (who were available) per §224.2(b)	Error: Dept. and court failed to satisfy the duty; §224.2(b) requires inquiry of extended family members
Whether the failure to inquire was prejudicial requiring reversal/remand	Any failure was harmless because information from relatives was unlikely to meaningfully affect ICWA status	Failure was prejudicial because extended relatives likely had meaningful information and agency bears the inquiry burden	Prejudicial error: remand for further inquiry/notice; termination conditionally affirmed pending compliance
Whether a parent must affirmatively show they would have claimed Indian ancestry to prove prejudice	Agency contends parent must show she would have claimed ancestry if asked	Mother argues she need not show this where agency’s inadequate inquiry deprived the record of such information	Court rejects requiring an affirmative parental claim; where Dept. fails initial inquiry, prejudice is shown in most circumstances if extended family likely holds meaningful information

In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (describing ICWA notice and tribe’s right to determine Indian status)
In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (2021) (agency’s duty to inquire of all relevant persons; reject requiring parent to affirmatively claim ancestry)
In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (2021) (agency and court share affirmative, continuing duty to inquire; extended family answers likely meaningful)
In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (2020) (initial inquiry obligation and who must be asked)
In re D.F., 55 Cal.App.5th 558 (2020) (interpretation of inquiry duties under §224.2)
In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (2018) (insistence that appellate record show affirmative ICWA efforts before finding compliance)
In re S.R., 64 Cal.App.5th 303 (2021) (parents may lack knowledge even where extended relatives have tribe membership)
In re Elizabeth M., 19 Cal.App.5th 768 (2018) (agency duty to develop ICWA information from any source)