84 Cal.App.5th 15
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- G.H., detained two days after birth when both he and Mother tested positive for methamphetamine; parents were homeless and had long-term meth use.
- Father reported a "word-of-mouth" belief of small Cherokee/Catawba ancestry and told the court he had previously contacted his mother via LinkedIn but was estranged from her.
- At detention, the juvenile court directed SSA to follow up to verify the paternal grandmother information; SSA later reported Father could not provide contact information.
- At the June 2020 jurisdiction hearing parents stipulated ICWA did not apply; after reunification services a different judge held a section 366.26 hearing and terminated parental rights.
- Parents appealed raising (1) the §366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) parent-child benefit exception and (2) failure of SSA and the juvenile court to satisfy ICWA and state inquiry duties regarding possible Native American ancestry.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the benefit-exception ruling but conditionally reversed and remanded on ICWA-inquiry grounds, instructing SSA and the court to attempt to contact the paternal grandmother (including by the same social-media means Father had used) and to comply with ICWA notice if Native heritage is confirmed; the court denied SSA’s request to take additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents met the §366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) "benefit" exception to termination | Adoption is appropriate; parents failed to show a substantial, positive attachment outweighing benefits of adoption | Parents maintained loving, regular visits; child called Father "dada" and resisted separation, so termination would be detrimental | Court: No error in denying exception—substantial evidence supports that visits/relationship did not outweigh benefits of adoption; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether SSA and the juvenile court satisfied ICWA/state-law inquiry duties (duty to investigate paternal grandmother and give notice if appropriate) | SSA: Father provided no usable contact info; agency’s inquiry was adequate; appellate court should consider additional postjudgment evidence | Parents: Father identified his mother and said he reached her via LinkedIn; SSA failed to follow up by the same means and did not conduct adequate inquiry | Court: Reversed and remanded conditionally—SSA and court failed to adequately inquire about the paternal grandmother (including by LinkedIn); must attempt contact and, if heritage found, provide ICWA notice; appellate court denied taking additional evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (explains the benefit-exception standard and hybrid review)
- In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (clarifies burden and proof required to establish benefit exception)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (seminal interpretation of the benefit exception)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (ICWA background; tribes determine membership)
- In re A.R., 77 Cal.App.5th 197 (failure to inquire about ICWA heritage requires reversal/remand)
- In re E.V., 80 Cal.App.5th 691 (clear rule requiring reversal when ICWA inquiry rules not followed)
- In re S.R., 64 Cal.App.5th 303 (need to investigate oral family statements about Native ancestry)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (statutory duty is on agencies and courts to inquire about possible Indian children)