75 Cal.App.5th 502
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Mother appealed termination of parental rights to her three children, arguing the Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to interview extended family about possible Indian ancestry under ICWA.
- DCFS and social workers interviewed mother, father, and paternal aunt; both parents and paternal aunt denied Indian ancestry, and mother completed a Judicial Council ICWA form denying Indian ancestry.
- A prior 2015 dependency proceeding resulted in a juvenile-court finding that ICWA did not apply to two of the children; all three children share the same parents and ancestry.
- Mother lived with maternal grandfather and maternal aunt during the proceedings; DCFS did not interview those maternal relatives about Indian ancestry and conceded that omission was error.
- The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply, terminated parental rights, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the failure to interview maternal relatives was not prejudicial under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS’s failure to interview extended family about Indian ancestry prejudiced mother under ICWA | Mother: DCFS erred by not interviewing maternal grandfather and maternal aunt; that information could have shown the children are Indian children | DCFS: Conceded failure to interview was error but argued it was not prejudicial because parents denied ancestry, paternal aunt denied ancestry, and a 2015 finding said ICWA did not apply | Court: Error was not prejudicial — record showed parents denied ancestry, a prior ICWA finding for siblings, paternal aunt denial, and mother lived with relatives and had chance to provide info, so further inquiry was unlikely to yield meaningful information |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (failure to interview relatives prejudicial if readily obtainable information likely would meaningfully bear on Indian-child status)
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (describing ICWA’s protective purposes and initial inquiry duties)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2016) (explaining notice requirement when court knows or has reason to know a child is an Indian child)
- In re A.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (definitional discussion of "Indian child" under ICWA)
- In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (parental lack of knowledge of ancestry can justify further inquiry when record shows estrangement from biological relatives)