91 Cal.App.5th 314
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- San Francisco Human Services Agency filed dependency petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code §300 for parents D.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Father) involving their nine children after allegations Father sexually abused several siblings and Mother failed to protect them.
- At intake Mother first said the maternal grandmother “had some Native ancestry (Blackfoot and Cherokee),” but later repeatedly denied any Native American ancestry and submitted an ICWA-020 and an ancestry.com genetic test showing no Native American ancestry; Father consistently denied any Native ancestry and filed an ICWA-020.
- Agency interviewed the maternal aunt (maternal grandmother deceased) and the paternal grandmother; both denied any Native American ancestry. The Agency concluded there was no reason to believe the children may be Indian children; the juvenile court made corresponding ICWA findings.
- Appellants appealed only the ICWA inquiry, arguing the Agency should have interviewed five additional extended relatives (maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, maternal cousin, paternal grandfather, paternal aunt).
- The Court of Appeal held the Agency satisfied its initial duty of inquiry under §224.2(b) given the parents’ repeated denials, the ICWA-020s, and the interviews of available extended relatives, and affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency satisfied initial ICWA inquiry under §224.2(b) | Agency failed to interview five additional extended family members; inquiry insufficient | Parents repeatedly denied Native ancestry (ICWA-020s); Agency interviewed available extended relatives who denied Native ancestry; maternal grandmother deceased | Agency satisfied initial inquiry; court affirmed ICWA inapplicability — no need to interview additional relatives under these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ezequiel G., 81 Cal.App.5th 984 (discusses practical, discretionary approach to ICWA inquiry and asks whether inquiry "reliably answered" whether child may be Indian)
- In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (agency must pursue leads when parents do not know ancestry, e.g., interview biological relatives when adoption or other indicators suggest further inquiry)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (agency conceded failure to contact father/relatives; illustrates duty to inquire of known relatives)
- In re A.C., 75 Cal.App.5th 1009 (agency conceded inadequate inquiry when neither parent’s extended relatives were interviewed)
- In re J.S., 62 Cal.App.5th 678 (cautions about relying on consumer genetic test results like ancestry.com for ICWA determinations)
- In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (recognizes urban Indian families may lose knowledge of tribal status; duty to inquire is not relieved by parental uncertainty)
- In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (explains ICWA’s purpose and California’s implementing requirements)