In re Benjamin M.
70 Cal.App.5th 735
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- San Bernardino CFS filed section 300 petitions in Sept. 2019 for three children (Timothy, Daniel, Benjamin). Mother is parent of all three; Alvaro (Father) is Benjamin’s father and is alleged to have possible Indian ancestry.
- CFS could not locate Father; Mother said Father was homeless, but CFS spoke with Father’s sister‑in‑law and at least one of Father’s brothers and Mother gave an address for one brother where she had visited Benjamin.
- At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply; later the court terminated parental rights to the children (Mother appealed).
- On appeal Mother challenged only CFS’s and the court’s compliance with the ICWA initial‑inquiry duty regarding Benjamin’s possible paternal Indian ancestry; CFS conceded error but argued it was harmless.
- The Court of Appeal held CFS failed its state‑law initial inquiry duty by not asking readily available extended relatives about paternal ancestry; the missing information was both readily obtainable and likely to bear meaningfully on whether Benjamin is an Indian child.
- The termination order as to Benjamin was conditionally reversed and the case remanded for proper ICWA inquiry (the terminations as to Timothy and Daniel were affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFS satisfied its ICWA "initial inquiry" duty by investigating paternal relatives about possible Indian ancestry | Mother: CFS failed to ask extended family (brother, sister‑in‑law) despite contact and an available address, so initial inquiry was inadequate | CFS: agency concedes procedural error but contends the error was harmless on this record | Court: CFS erred; reversal required because relatives were readily obtainable and their information would likely bear meaningfully on Indian status; remand for proper inquiry |
| Proper harmless‑error standard when initial inquiry is omitted | Mother: error prejudicial because agency foreclosed potentially meaningful information necessary to determine Indian status | CFS: harmless because no reason to believe or know an Indian child is involved | Court: adopts a middle test—reverse where agency failed initial inquiry and the record shows readily obtainable information likely to meaningfully affect the determination; rejects requiring parent to prove ancestry claim as prerequisite to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (explaining ICWA notice purpose and a tribe’s right to a determination)
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (describing ICWA jurisdictional and substantive requirements)
- In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (reversal where agency failed to ask mother about maternal Indian ancestry)
- In re K.R., 20 Cal.App.5th 701 (error where agency did not contact relatives likely to know paternal ancestry)
- In re J.N., 138 Cal.App.4th 450 (error not harmless where mother was never asked about Indian ancestry)
- In re A.C., 65 Cal.App.5th 1060 (discussed rule that parent must at minimum assert they would have claimed ancestry; court declined to adopt as controlling here)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless‑error standard under state law)