55 Cal.App.5th 558
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 petition on June 17, 2019 concerning three minors (D.F., G.F., B.F.); the children were detained and placed with DCFS.
- At the detention hearing parents completed Judicial Council form ICWA-020: father checked he had no Indian ancestry; mother checked “may have Indian ancestry” and wrote “unknown tribe name from New Mexico.”
- DCFS conducted further inquiry: interviewed mother and maternal relatives who provided only vague, unverified statements (e.g., a maternal great‑great‑grandmother born in New Mexico described as “part Native American,” family beliefs of Native ancestry).
- Because no specific tribe was identified, DCFS contacted the BIA and sent certified mail inquiries to multiple tribes (21 in New Mexico, nine in New York); the record on appeal did not include the actual notices DCFS sent.
- Tribes responded (24 total responses provided to the court) that the children were not enrolled and not eligible for enrollment; DCFS told the court it had been over 60 days since those responses.
- At the October 16, 2019 hearing the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and sustained dependency findings; mother appealed solely contending ICWA notice requirements were not met because the actual notices were not filed with the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS and the juvenile court satisfied ICWA notice requirements so formal notice to tribes and filing of those notices with the court were required | DCFS performed the required initial inquiry and adequate further inquiry; the information obtained did not rise to a “reason to know” that the children are Indian children, so formal notice was not required | Mother contends DCFS failed to provide the court with the actual ICWA notices sent to tribes, preventing the court from determining whether proper notice was given and so ICWA protections should have been triggered | Court held DCFS met inquiry duties, the investigation left only nonspecific evidence of possible ancestry (no reason to know), formal notice was not required, and the juvenile court’s ICWA finding is supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (discusses independent review of undisputed ICWA facts and duty to further inquire)
- In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (analyzes distinction between reason to believe and reason to know under amended ICWA law)
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (holds vague family statements of possible ancestry do not establish reason to know)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (explains affirmative, continuing duty to inquire about Indian status)
- In re Cheyanne F., 164 Cal.App.4th 571 (explains what information ICWA notice must provide to permit tribal review)
- In re K.R., 20 Cal.App.5th 701 (juvenile court must ensure DCFS conducted an adequate investigation before accepting ICWA conclusion)
- In re Antoinette S., 104 Cal.App.4th 1401 (further inquiry obligation is not absolute and does not require pursuing unproductive leads)