In re J.C., B312685

Newborn J.C. tested positive for methadone and marijuana; Los Angeles DCFS filed a dependency petition alleging parental substance abuse and detained J.C., placing him with paternal grandmother Cheryl B.
Parents Angelica S. and Cameron C. have histories of substance abuse, criminal arrests, and limited progress in reunification; reunification services were ultimately terminated and parental rights were terminated at the section 366.26 hearing.
Both parents signed Judicial Council form ICWA-020 denying known Indian ancestry; the juvenile court found “no reason to know” ICWA applied and did not pursue further inquiry.
The social worker did not ask readily available extended family members (e.g., paternal grandmother Cheryl, maternal grandparents Kathryn and Mark) about possible Indian ancestry, nor did the court ensure such inquiries were made during almost three years of proceedings.
On appeal, Angelica and Cameron argued DCFS failed its duty of inquiry under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2 and ICWA; DCFS argued any failure was harmless because parents denied Indian ancestry.
The Court of Appeal held DCFS’s inquiry was inadequate, reversed the ICWA finding for lack of substantial evidence, conditionally affirmed the termination orders, and remanded for proper inquiry and notice if required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS)	Defendant's Argument (Angelica/Cameron)	Held
Whether DCFS satisfied its initial duty of inquiry under ICWA/§ 224.2(b)	Parents denied Indian ancestry on ICWA-020; no further inquiry needed	DCFS failed to interview extended family and others with relevant knowledge	DCFS failed to conduct adequate inquiry; remand required
Whether the juvenile court ensured DCFS complied with its ICWA inquiry duty	Court relied on parents’ denials and signed forms; finding ICWA did not apply was supported	Court failed to ask whether DCFS interviewed extended family or describe investigative efforts	Court erred in concluding ICWA did not apply because record lacks adequate inquiry evidence
Whether DCFS’s inquiry error was harmless	Parents’ written denials were reliable; no record evidence suggested unreliability	Failure prevented discovery of information that could meaningfully bear on Indian ancestry	Error not harmless where readily obtainable information (extended relatives) could have meaningfully informed inquiry; remand required
Scope of further proceedings on remand	Any further ICWA work would be duplicative given parents’ denials	Parents cannot show prejudice without proper inquiry; further inquiry is necessary	Conditional affirmation of termination orders; remand to ensure § 224.2 compliance and ICWA notice if reason to know/believe arises

In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2016) (describing ICWA’s purpose and notice requirements)
In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (agency duty to inquire; remand where inquiry inadequate)
In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (harmless-error framework: reversal required when readily obtainable information could meaningfully bear on ICWA inquiry)
In re H.V., 75 Cal.App.5th 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (three duties under § 224.2: initial inquiry, further inquiry, notice)
In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (duty to inquire begins at initial contact and includes extended family)
In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (court must ensure agency made relevant ICWA inquiries)
In re S.R., 64 Cal.App.5th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (agency obligation to ask all relevant individuals about possible Indian status)
In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (burden to develop ICWA-related information rests with the agency, not the parents)
In re Breanna S., 8 Cal.App.5th 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (only tribes can conclusively determine Indian-child status)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (discusses ICWA-related principles; cited regarding tribes’ role in status determinations)