In re F.B. CA3, C092982

Dependency petition filed June 29, 2020 under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) after parents’ inability to protect the newborn and related allegations from a siblings’ case.
Mother had previously indicated possible Cherokee and Nansemond ancestry in the siblings’ case and signed a form here saying she may have Indian ancestry but did not identify a tribe. Father denied Native heritage.
The petition included an Indian child inquiry attachment; initial Department reports nevertheless stated ICWA “does not apply.”
On August 18, 2020 the court sustained the petition, found the minor may be an Indian child, and ordered ICWA notice to tribes and BIA; disposition was continued to allow noticing.
At the October 8, 2020 dispositional hearing the juvenile court declared the minor a dependent and ordered services and placement but made no final ICWA findings or notice-compliance rulings.
Parents appealed on the ground of ICWA inquiry/notice noncompliance; the Department conceded the issue, but the Court of Appeal found the ICWA claim premature and affirmed the dispositional order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dispositional order must be reversed for failure to comply with ICWA inquiry and notice where mother indicated possible Indian ancestry	Parents: mother asserts the Department failed to conduct adequate ICWA inquiry and give required notice after she indicated possible Native ancestry, so dispositional order must be reversed	Department: conceded ICWA issue and agreed remand may be appropriate	Court: ICWA claim is premature because the juvenile court made no final ICWA ruling at disposition; potential defects may be remedied in the ongoing proceedings, so dispositional order affirmed

In re K.M., 172 Cal.App.4th 115 (2009) (agencies and juvenile court have affirmative duty to inquire whether a child may be an Indian child)
In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (ICWA notice enables tribes to determine whether to intervene; notice triggers waiting periods for foster care/termination)
In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (2016) (social worker must interview parents, relatives, and others who may have information about tribal membership when there is reason to know)
In re D.W., 193 Cal.App.4th 413 (2011) (detail required in ICWA notice to tribes)
In re M.R., 7 Cal.App.5th 886 (2017) (ICWA claim premature where no final ICWA determination was made at dispositional hearing)
Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (1982) (ripeness requires a sufficiently concrete controversy)
City of Santa Monica v. Stewart, 126 Cal.App.4th 43 (2005) (ripeness doctrine and requirement of a current controversy)