92 Cal.App.5th 711
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- H.B. born 2016; parents had histories of methamphetamine use. In 2019 law enforcement found large amounts of methamphetamine in the family home and the child was removed; dependency petition followed.
- Initial ICWA forms from both parents denied Indian ancestry; multiple relatives (paternal and maternal) attended hearings but made no ICWA claims on the record.
- The juvenile court ordered the Department to expand its ICWA inquiry prior to the section 366.26 hearing and continued the hearing to allow compliance.
- The Department interviewed parents, paternal grandfather and grandmother, maternal grandmother, and maternal great-uncle (among others identified by interviewees); all denied Native American ancestry and offered no additional contacts with relevant knowledge.
- Father argued the Department failed to inquire with maternal grandfather, an unidentified paternal aunt, paternal stepgrandmother, and a maternal stepsister; the juvenile court found ICWA inapplicable and terminated parental rights; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department’s ICWA initial inquiry under §224.2(b) was adequate | Department (Respondent): inquiry adequate — it asked parents and multiple extended-family members, interviewed those identified, and reported results after court-ordered expanded inquiry | Father (Appellant): inquiry was inadequate because Department failed to contact maternal grandfather, an unidentified paternal aunt, and argued steprelatives should have been treated as extended family | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports adequacy; statutory "extended family" definition is limited; Department reasonably contacted those identified and two generational levels of relatives, so no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.S., 75 Cal.App.5th 575 (court explained scope of initial ICWA inquiry requirement)
- In re D.F., 55 Cal.App.5th 558 (discussed inquiry duties under ICWA and §224.2)
- In re Josiah T., 71 Cal.App.5th 388 (held that finding ICWA inapplicable implies duty of inquiry was met)
- In re Ezequiel G., 81 Cal.App.5th 984 (refused literal requirement to interview every extended family member; emphasized pragmatic inquiry focused on whether child ‘is or may be’ Indian)
- In re Q.M., 79 Cal.App.5th 1068 (recognized constraints when parents fail to provide names or contact information for extended family)