77 Cal.App.5th 152
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Dependency petitions filed for I.F. (Dec. 2019) and newborn B.F. (May 2020); mother reported possible Native American ancestry (paternal side) but lacked tribe or enrollment information.
- A maternal grandfather reported the family "may" have Native American ancestry and that his father was from Minnesota; early social‑worker reports recorded a “reason to believe” for possible Indian status.
- Multiple social workers prepared later reports for the 2021 petitions that omitted the December 2019 maternal‑grandfather interview and concluded “no reason to believe” the children were Indian.
- At the June 2021 jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court adopted the Department’s ICWA findings concluding there was a reason to believe I.F. was an Indian child but ultimately found no reason to know and that ICWA did not apply.
- On appeal the court held the mother’s and maternal‑grandfather’s statements (including the geographic link to Minnesota) established a “reason to believe” and that the Department failed to perform the statutorily required further inquiry; the ICWA nonapplicability findings were vacated and the matter remanded for further inquiry and, if appropriate, tribal notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family statements triggered the “reason to believe” standard requiring further inquiry | Mother: yes; her statements and grandfather’s statements about Native ancestry suffice | Department: vague family history insufficient; no identified tribe or enrollment | Held: Yes. Statements (including Minnesota origin) established reason to believe and triggered further inquiry under §224.2(e) |
| Whether the Department satisfied its duty by continuing an initial inquiry without formal further inquiry | Mother: Dept failed to perform required further inquiry under subdivision (e) | Department: its ongoing initial inquiry satisfied duties and no reason to believe existed | Held: No. Continued initial inquiry under (b) does not replace the mandatory further inquiry under (e) once reason to believe is triggered |
| Whether further inquiry (BIA/tribal contacts) would have been futile | Department: futile because no tribe identity or specific tribal agent was known | Mother: not futile; geographic lead (Minnesota) permits tractable inquiries to BIA/tribes | Held: Not futile. Minnesota connection made contacting BIA/tribes reasonable and required |
| Remedy and required next steps | Mother: vacatur of ICWA negative findings and remand for further inquiry/notice | Department: sought affirmance of the ICWA findings | Held: Vacated ICWA nonapplicability findings; remanded for diligent further inquiry, potential tribal notice; other jurisdiction/disposition orders otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribes are the final arbiters of membership rights)
- Dwayne P. v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.4th 247 (2002) (child may qualify as Indian child even if parents are not enrolled)
- In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (2020) (parental belief of ancestry can trigger duty to inquire; further inquiry is required)
- In re D.F., 55 Cal.App.5th 558 (2020) (a parent’s statement of possible tribal heritage can be sufficient to trigger further inquiry)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (2021) (initial inquiry producing reason to believe imposes duty to perform further inquiry)
- In re J.S., 62 Cal.App.5th 678 (2021) (BIA/tribal contacts may be limited without tribe identity, but lack of identity is not dispositive)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (2009) (standards for appellate review where facts are undisputed)