In re Antonio R., B314389N

Background

In 2018 the Department received a neglect referral concerning then‑one‑year‑old Antonio; Mother submitted an ICWA‑020 stating she had no Indian ancestry.
The Department interviewed Mother and paternal great‑grandmother (who denied Indian ancestry) but did not ask maternal grandparents, aunts, or an uncle—several of whom were later present in court—about possible Indian ancestry.
Father and paternal relatives denied Indian ancestry; the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and removed the child from Mother, later terminating parental rights at a section 366.26 hearing in August 2021.
Maternal grandmother and grandfather were designated as prospective adoptive parents; maternal grandmother testified at the selection/implementation hearing but was not asked about Indian ancestry.
Mother appealed, arguing the Department and juvenile court failed to satisfy ICWA and California law’s inquiry and notice duties concerning extended family.
The Court of Appeal conditionally affirmed the termination, held the Department and court erred by failing to inquire of maternal extended relatives, found the error prejudicial, and remanded for compliance with ICWA and state law (with a conditional disposition depending on the results of further inquiry).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department satisfied its initial duty to inquire under ICWA/Cal. law by asking extended family about possible Indian ancestry	Department failed to ask maternal extended family members who were readily available and could have relevant information	Parents’ and paternal great‑grandmother’s denials were sufficient to support the court’s finding ICWA did not apply	Department erred: section 224.2(b) required inquiry of extended family; court must ensure Department complied before finding ICWA inapplicable
Whether the inquiry error was prejudicial (harmless‑error standard)	Error prejudicial because we do not know what maternal relatives would have reported; such information is likely meaningful	Harmless: existing inquiries and denials made further inquiry unlikely to change outcome	Error was prejudicial under California law; reversal/remand required because missing extended‑family information was likely to be meaningful
Who bears the obligation to inquire (scope of duty)	Both the Department and the juvenile court have an affirmative, continuing duty to inquire of parents, extended family, and court participants	Department contends parental denials reduce need for broader inquiry	Court and Department share the duty; the court must ensure the agency’s inquiries were adequate and order follow‑up if not
Appropriate remedy when initial inquiry is inadequate	Vacate termination or at minimum remand for full ICWA inquiry and notice; if reason to believe child is Indian, vacate and follow ICWA procedures	If inquiry would not have meaningfully changed outcome, proceed with termination	Conditional affirmance and remand: if further inquiry yields no reason to believe Antonio is an Indian child, termination stands; if there is reason to believe, vacate the order and proceed consistent with ICWA and state law

Key Cases Cited

In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (describes ICWA notice and inquiry obligations and purpose of tribal notice)
In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (2021) (rejects requiring parent to affirmatively allege ancestry to show prejudice from inquiry failures)
In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (2021) (discusses agency duty of inquiry and when missing information is likely meaningful)
In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (2020) (explains initial duty to ask relevant individuals about Indian status)
In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (2018) (requires appellate record to show agency and court efforts to comply with ICWA inquiry/notice)
In re Elizabeth M., 19 Cal.App.5th 768 (2018) (agency and court must act on information from any source about possible Indian ancestry)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (addresses limits of prior appellate authority on ICWA issues)