80 Cal.App.5th 691
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Father (G.V.) appeals termination of parental rights to newborn E.V.; child removed shortly after birth for parental substance use and father’s incarceration.
- Throughout detention (Nov 2020), jurisdiction (Jan 2021), review hearings, and the permanency hearing (Jan 2022), the juvenile court and SSA repeatedly failed to follow ICWA inquiry procedures: no ICWA-020 parental notification forms in the record, court did not ask parents about Indian ancestry on the record, and ICWA-010 inquiry attachments were incomplete regarding extended family.
- Social worker reports often stated “ICWA reserved” or that parents denied Native American ancestry; Father gave inconsistent statements ("not too sure" and later referenced Apache relatives); extended family were not fully interviewed about heritage.
- SSA conceded some inquiry errors (notably failure to contact extended relatives); county counsel sought to submit additional, postjudgment evidence on appeal claiming belated compliance with ICWA.
- This Court, relying on its precedent in In re A.R., held that failures to conduct the mandated ICWA inquiry require reversal and remand for compliance; the Court denied the county’s request to take additional evidence on appeal and conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of ICWA inquiry | Errors were minor/harmless; SSA asked parents and reports show denials | Court and SSA failed mandatory duties; reversal required | Conditional reversal and remand; error not harmless; ICWA inquiry required |
| Consideration of postjudgment evidence on appeal | Allow new evidence showing belated compliance to avoid reversal | Postjudgment evidence is for juvenile court; appellate court should not accept it | Motion denied; appellate court will not receive new evidence; remand for juvenile court inquiry |
| Whether social worker interviews satisfy court’s on‑record duty | Social worker’s interviews fulfilled inquiry duties | Court must ask parents on the record and order ICWA‑020; social worker cannot substitute | Court’s on‑record duty is distinct; social worker inquiries insufficient |
| Effect of parental denials/equivocal statements | Parent denials make error harmless | Parental equivocal statements do not excuse government’s duty to inquire | Parental statements do not cure agency/court failures; prejudice presumed and reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.R., 77 Cal.App.5th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (adopts rule requiring reversal when mandatory ICWA inquiry rules are ignored)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (describes a so‑called middle‑ground, case‑by‑case approach to ICWA inquiry errors)
- In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (explains the three distinct duties of inquiry under section 224.2)
- In re Jennifer A., 103 Cal.App.4th 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (holds appellate courts should not take on the role of factfinder to resolve ICWA compliance)