In re Dezi C., 16 Cal.5th 1112

Background

In 2019 the Los Angeles County DCFS filed dependency petitions for two children, Dezi and Joshua; parents completed ICWA‑020 forms denying Indian ancestry and the juvenile court initially found ICWA did not apply.
The Department interviewed multiple relatives (paternal and maternal grandparents, siblings, a cousin) about the dependency allegations but did not ask any extended family members whether the children or parents had Indian ancestry.
At the §366.26 permanency hearing (Jan. 2022) the court terminated parental rights; ICWA was not applied or discussed at that stage.
On appeal the Court of Appeal acknowledged the Department’s initial Cal‑ICWA inquiry was deficient and adopted a "reason‑to‑believe" harmlessness rule, finding no reversible error on this record.
The Supreme Court granted review to resolve a multi‑court split and held that an inadequate Cal‑ICWA initial inquiry requires conditional reversal and remand for the agency to conduct a proper, documented inquiry and, where required, give tribal notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a deficient initial Cal‑ICWA inquiry is reversible error	Mother: inadequate inquiry is prejudicial per se (or at least requires reversal absent exceptional proof); appellate court should not force parents to prove prejudice	Department: error is harmless unless the record contains information suggesting a reason to believe the child may be Indian (reason‑to‑believe rule)	Court: error requires conditional reversal and remand for a proper inquiry and record documentation; prejudice cannot be assessed until inquiry is done
Whether an appellant must proffer extra‑record evidence on appeal to prove prejudice	Mother: burden should remain on agency; parents cannot be required to supply information that agency failed to gather	Department/dissent: appellate courts may consider proffers or postjudgment evidence (Code Civ. Proc. §909) so parents should show prejudice on appeal	Court: refuses to shift burden to parents; generally appellate courts should not admit new evidence on appeal except in exceptional circumstances (see Kenneth D.); remand for agency inquiry instead
Which remedy/standard should govern (per se reversal, Benjamin M., reason‑to‑believe, presumptive affirmance)	Mother: adopt per se reversal or Benjamin M./K.H. approach that focuses on adequacy of investigation, not Watson outcome test	Department: adopt reason‑to‑believe rule to protect permanency and finality unless record suggests likely tribal connection	Court: rejects reason‑to‑believe, Benjamin M., and presumptive affirmance; adopts conditional reversal remand that lets agency cure inquiry failures and the juvenile court then decide ICWA applicability

Key Cases Cited

Mississippi Choctaw Indians Band v. Holyfield, [citation="490 U.S. 30"] (U.S. 1989) (Congress enacted ICWA to protect Indian children, tribes, and families)
People v. Watson, [citation="46 Cal.2d 818"] (Cal. 1956) (standard for harmless state‑law error: reasonably probable a more favorable result would have occurred absent the error)
In re Isaiah W., [citation="1 Cal.5th 1"] (Cal. 2016) (California’s affirmative and continuing duty to inquire under Cal‑ICWA)
In re Benjamin M., [citation="70 Cal.App.5th 735"] (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (articulated a test focused on whether readily obtainable information likely bore on Indian status)
In re Y.W., [citation="70 Cal.App.5th 542"] (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (held jurisdictional ICWA inquiry failures may require reversal because prejudice cannot be shown on an inadequate record)
In re K.H., [citation="84 Cal.App.5th 566"] (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (reasoned inadequate inquiry often cannot be cured on appeal and reversal/remand is generally required)
People v. Moore, [citation="39 Cal.4th 168"] (Cal. 2006) (framework for limited remand when a collateral factual issue can be resolved postjudgment)
People v. Gaines, [citation="46 Cal.4th 172"] (Cal. 2009) (conditional reversal/remand when record is inadequate to assess prejudice)