83 Cal.App.5th 635
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Baby Girl M. was declared a dependent after findings of domestic violence between Father (K.M., Jr.) and Mother (J.P.), Daughter’s positive marijuana test at birth, and Mother’s substance-abuse history.
- The juvenile court removed the child, ordered suitable placement, denied Mother reunification services, and granted reunification services to Father.
- Father’s sole issue on appeal was ICWA compliance: he said the juvenile court failed to ask at his first appearance whether the child was an Indian child and the Department did not adequately follow up on Father’s ICWA-20 form noting his grandmother’s tribal membership.
- The parties initially submitted a joint stipulation asking for remand (without affirming or reversing) so the Department could conduct further ICWA inquiry; this court rejected that stipulation and invited briefing on remand authority and mootness.
- While the appeal was pending, the Department conducted further inquiry (interviewed Father and his father, learned the grandmother was deceased, contacted Cherokee tribes) and the juvenile court later did not find the child an Indian child but ordered ongoing updates.
- The Court concluded it could not provide effective relief because the Department was already conducting the required inquiry and the juvenile court must oversee that process; the appeal was dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department satisfied ICWA initial and further inquiry and, if not, whether appellate relief is warranted | Dept conceded it failed to do appropriate inquiry at disposition but later conducted further inquiry and contacted tribes | Father argued the initial failure mattered; the later inquiry was delayed and incomplete (did not sufficiently interview extended family or document tribe contacts) | Court found the Dept had already undertaken the remedial inquiry and the appellate court could not offer effective relief now; appeal is moot |
| Whether an appellate court may remand to the juvenile court without affirming or reversing (and whether such a remand would be advisory) | Dept/Respondent argued remand without affirmance/reversal is appropriate and the appeal is moot because the Dept is engaged in further inquiry | Father disputed mootness and adequacy of the post‑appeal inquiry | Court rejected the parties’ stipulated bare-remand approach, held appellate relief would be advisory or ineffective here, and dismissed the appeal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brooke C., 127 Cal.App.4th 377 (2005) (discusses when remand for ICWA compliance may be appropriate)
- In re E.V., 80 Cal.App.5th 691 (2022) (held post‑appeal ICWA efforts do not necessarily moot an ICWA appeal)
- In re M.B., 80 Cal.App.5th 617 (2022) (similar holding on post‑appeal ICWA inquiry and mootness)
- In re Allison B., 79 Cal.App.5th 214 (2022) (reached a different mootness outcome where post‑appeal investigation mooted the appeal)
- In re N.S., 245 Cal.App.4th 53 (2016) (explains mootness turns on whether effective appellate relief is available)
- In re S.H., 82 Cal.App.5th 166 (2022) (analyzed similar procedural posture; affirmed in context of ICWA issues)