46 Cal.App.5th 1041
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- San Diego County HHSA filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(f) for 12-year-old D.S.; mother (M.J.) previously lost parental rights after a conviction for killing another minor.
- D.S. had been living with a paternal aunt (later determined to be his presumed mother); mother denied any Indian ancestry at the detention hearing.
- Aunt told the Agency that D.S.'s father ‘‘may’’ have Sioux/Blackfeet ancestry after consulting a great-grandmother; aunt herself said she had no tribal ID, had not lived on a reservation, and had no reason to believe D.S. was an Indian child.
- The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detention and ordered the Agency to investigate potential ICWA applicability; the Agency conducted further inquiry under § 224.2(e) by interviewing family and attempting to contact multiple tribes and agencies.
- The Agency received one tribe response stating nonmembership, two tribes agreed to check records (no response yet), one tribe requested formal ICWA notice to determine membership, and multiple contact attempts to other tribes went unanswered.
- The juvenile court found the Agency made a reasonable and adequate inquiry and that there was no reason to believe or know ICWA applied; mother appealed, challenging the adequacy of the Agency’s ICWA inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency and juvenile court satisfied ICWA inquiry duties under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(e). | Agency: Conducted required further inquiry—interviewed qualifying extended family (aunt), contacted BIA/State DSS resources and multiple tribes, repeatedly attempted contact, and shared information as required; no reason to believe or know ICWA applied. | Mother: Agency’s inquiry was inadequate; formal ICWA notice never issued and the Agency failed to adequately contact/obtain information from tribes and extended relatives. | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports that the Agency performed adequate further inquiry under § 224.2(e) and the juvenile court reasonably found no reason to believe or know ICWA applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (ICWA’s purpose and the juvenile court’s affirmative, continuing duty to inquire)
- In re A.W., 38 Cal.App.5th 655 (2019) (conforming California statutory amendments to federal ICWA regulations)
- In re J.L., 10 Cal.App.5th 913 (2017) (framework for inquiry and notice obligations under prior California statutes)
- In re Cheyanne F., 164 Cal.App.4th 571 (2008) (scope of information required in ICWA notice to allow tribal membership review)
- In re Francisco W., 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (2006) (identifying which family identifying information should be included in ICWA inquiries/notice)
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (2000) (agency not required to pursue unproductive investigative leads)