In re Easton V. CA5, F085320

Two children (Easton, b. 2015; Ethan, b. 2020) were removed after Ethan sustained unexplained burns and failure to thrive; petition alleged mother failed to protect and had substance issues.
Children were placed first with maternal aunt then with maternal great-aunt Kirstyn, who is willing to adopt; father was incarcerated during key proceedings.
Mother participated in services and regular supervised visits but exhibited behavioral problems (DUI/arrest; harshness in visits); reunification services were terminated at 12 months.
At the section 366.26 hearing the children were found adoptable; mother argued the parental‑benefit exception to adoption, but the juvenile court found the exception not established and terminated parental rights.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the parental‑benefit exception should apply, and (2) the agency and juvenile court failed to satisfy ICWA inquiry obligations by not asking extended family about possible Indian ancestry.
The agency conceded ICWA inquiry error; the Court of Appeal affirmed the termination as to parental‑benefit but conditionally reversed and remanded on ICWA inquiry grounds for further, documented inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parental‑benefit exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applied	Mother: she regularly visited, children benefit from the relationship, and severing it would be detrimental	Agency/Juvenile Ct: although visits occurred and a bond exists, evidence did not show termination would be detrimental when balanced against adoption benefits	Affirmed: court found first two prongs satisfied but no showing of the requisite detriment; no abuse of discretion in terminating parental rights
Whether ICWA inquiry duties were satisfied (failure to ask extended family about Indian ancestry)	Mother: agency and court failed to inquire of extended family as required, creating a reason‑to‑doubt ICWA finding	Agency: concedes extended‑family inquiry was not done; juvenile court had earlier found ICWA not to apply	Conditionally reversed and remanded: appellate court held the inquiry was inadequate, ordered a proper, documented inquiry per §224.2 and rule 5.481(a)(5); if ICWA applies, court must proceed accordingly; otherwise reinstatement of ICWA finding

In re K.H., 84 Cal.App.5th 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (framework for assessing ICWA inquiry error and prejudice)
In re E.C., 85 Cal.App.5th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (applying K.H. principles to remand for additional ICWA inquiry)
In re A.R., 11 Cal.5th 234 (Cal. 2021) (Supreme Court guidance on when remand is necessary for inadequate ICWA inquiry)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (standards for parental‑benefit exception at § 366.26)
In re Ezequiel G., 81 Cal.App.5th 984 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (scope of further inquiry duties under § 224.2)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for assessing prejudice / miscarriage of justice)