In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870

Background

Mother (Erica G.) has seven children: four older children presumed fathered by Leslie J.; three younger by Edward G. The family previously had North Carolina dependency proceedings; children were returned to Mother before she moved to California in Oct 2018.
DCFS filed a section 300 dependency petition in Los Angeles on May 7, 2019; children had lived with Mother in California for at least six months before filing and were detained.
At early hearings Mother reported possible Cherokee ancestry through a deceased maternal grandmother; initial ICWA forms by social workers often checked "no known Indian ancestry," while Mother’s ICWA-020 forms said the children "may have" Cherokee ancestry but she did not mark boxes indicating membership or eligibility.
The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply to Leslie’s children and made no similar explicit finding as to Edward’s children; the court declared the children dependents and placed them in DCFS custody (later, post-appeal minute orders show children returned to parents).
Mother appealed arguing (1) California lacked UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction because North Carolina had continuing jurisdiction, and (2) DCFS and the juvenile court failed to satisfy ICWA duties of inquiry and notice.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: California had UCCJEA jurisdiction; ICWA duties were satisfied as to Mother’s and Leslie’s side but not satisfied as to Edward’s children (but remedy for placement invalidation mooted by children’s return), so no reversal of orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction	California is the children’s home state (6+ months residence) and North Carolina had no pending dependency when CA petition filed	North Carolina retained continuing exclusive jurisdiction from prior dependency proceedings	CA has jurisdiction: children lived in CA ≥6 months and NC had no active case when CA proceedings began; Fam. Code §3421 governs
ICWA notice to Cherokee tribes	Mother’s vague statements about Cherokee ancestry did not provide a statutory "reason to know" a child is an Indian child under §224.2(d); no notice required	Mother argued DCFS/court should have given notice to Cherokee tribes based on her statements	No reason to know: ancestry alone is insufficient under the revised statutory/regulatory standard, so notice to tribes was not required for Mother’s/Leslie’s side
ICWA initial/further inquiry for Leslie’s children	DCFS performed initial inquiry (form declarations, in-court questioning) so no further inquiry required	Mother argued further inquiry/notice was required based on possible Cherokee ancestry	Inquiry satisfied for Leslie’s children: social-worker declarations, in-court questions, and parental forms amounted to substantial evidence of inquiry; no reason to believe triggering further inquiry
ICWA inquiry for Edward’s children / procedural defect	DCFS implied it fulfilled duties	Mother argued DCFS/court failed to ask Edward or obtain ICWA-020 forms	Error: record shows no evidence DCFS or court asked Edward about Indian status or obtained parental notification forms; duty of inquiry as to Edward’s children was not satisfied (remedial relief moot because children later returned)

Key Cases Cited

In re C.W., 33 Cal.App.5th 835 (2019) (UCCJEA jurisdiction principles)
In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (ICWA's purpose and applicability)
In re K.B., 173 Cal.App.4th 1275 (2009) (ICWA active efforts requirement discussion)
In re Alexzander C., 18 Cal.App.5th 438 (2017) (appellant burden on sufficiency of evidence review)
In re Antoinette S., 104 Cal.App.4th 1401 (2002) (consideration of postappeal juvenile court orders)
In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (2018) (when relatives' tribal membership may trigger further ICWA inquiry)
In re J.D., 189 Cal.App.4th 118 (2010) (vagueness of ancestral information insufficient for ICWA triggers)
Brackeen v. Bernhardt, 937 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2019) (ICWA definition of "Indian child" as political affiliation)