81 Cal.App.5th 984
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Dependency proceedings began 2017; juvenile court terminated mother Priscilla S.’s parental rights to three children (Unique, Dominic, Ezequiel) in August 2021; mother appealed.
- At initial hearings parents (and one father later) signed ICWA-020 forms and orally denied any Indian ancestry; juvenile court found no reason to know ICWA applied.
- DCFS reports show contact information or contacts with multiple extended relatives (including maternal uncle M.B., maternal cousin R.P., paternal aunt K.G.), but the agency did not document ICWA inquiries of those relatives.
- Mother argued on appeal DCFS failed to make adequate ICWA inquiries of certain extended relatives; she did not claim below that the parents’ ancestry statements were incorrect and made no objection in juvenile court to ICWA inquiry adequacy.
- The Court of Appeal refused to adopt the recently used rule of automatic reversal for omitted extended‑family inquiries; it adopted a hybrid review standard (substantial evidence for "reason to know"; abuse of discretion for adequacy/diligence) and required a showing of prejudicial error.
- Applying that standard, the court held there was substantial evidence no reason to know the children were "Indian children," no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court/DCFS, and no prejudice — so it affirmed termination orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of DCFS ICWA inquiry (failure to ask identified extended relatives) | Mother: DCFS failed to interview M.B., R.P., K.G.; statutory duty requires such inquiries and error warrants conditional reversal/remand. | DCFS: parents unequivocally denied ancestry; juvenile court properly found ICWA did not apply; any omission harmless. | Court: substantial evidence supports no reason to know; juvenile court did not abuse discretion — affirmed. |
| Standard of appellate review for ICWA inquiry errors | Mother: appellate courts may independently review and should reverse where agency omitted statutorily listed relatives. | DCFS: appellate review should defer; not an automatic reversal rule; require showing of prejudice. | Court: adopts hybrid standard — substantial evidence review on "reason to know," abuse of discretion review on adequacy/due diligence; rejects automatic reversal. |
| Weight of parents’ ICWA denials and counsel’s role | Mother: agency must still ask extended relatives regardless of parental denials. | DCFS: parents’ statements are often reliable; parents’ counsel should raise any ICWA inadequacy below; failure to object is relevant. | Court: parents’ denials can reliably negate tribal affiliation in many cases; counsel’s failure to object below is a relevant factor in abuse‑of‑discretion analysis. |
| Prejudice requirement for reversal | Mother: when agency omits inquiries, parent should not have to show prejudice because missing relatives might provide critical information. | DCFS: reversal should require showing that omission was prejudicial to the ICWA finding. | Court: reversal only if error was prejudicial — remand warranted only where record gives reason to believe child may be an Indian child. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2016) (ICWA requires a continuing duty to inquire and tribes determine membership)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (factual determinations reviewed for substantial evidence)
- In re J.C., 77 Cal.App.5th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (agency obligations to inquire of extended family members)
- In re Dezi C., 79 Cal.App.5th 769 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (advocates an outcome‑focused remand test where omission gives reason to believe child may be Indian)
- In re A.C., 75 Cal.App.5th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (supports remand where extended family inquiries omitted)
- In re H.V., 75 Cal.App.5th 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (remanded for additional ICWA inquiry; discusses burdens and practical effects)
- In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (reversed/remanded where agency failed to document efforts to ask extended family)
- In re E.H., 26 Cal.App.5th 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (ICWA noncompliance can render dependency proceedings vulnerable to collateral attack)