In re J.M. CA3
C092737
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Department filed dependency petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300) concerning two minors; mother denied Indian ancestry, father filed ICWA-020 claiming possible Cherokee heritage.
- Juvenile court found it unclear whether there was reason to know the children were Indian and ordered further inquiry under § 224.2(e).
- Social worker interviewed father and a paternal aunt but could not obtain contact information for the paternal grandfather or additional relatives with relevant information.
- Department contacted the BIA, CDSS Office of Tribal Affairs, and three Cherokee tribes (Eastern Band, Cherokee Nation, United Keetoowah) by e-mail and certified mail, and described the information it provided (names and birth dates).
- All three tribes responded they found no record of the children and concluded the minors were not Indian children under ICWA.
- Juvenile court found ICWA did not apply; parental rights were terminated and father appealed solely arguing inadequate ICWA inquiry/notice documentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dept. and juvenile court complied with ICWA further-inquiry and notice requirements where father alleged possible Cherokee ancestry | Father: Department failed to adequately inquire and did not file the correspondence showing what was sent to tribes, so record insufficient to support the court's ICWA finding | Dept./Respondent: Social worker made sufficient inquiries (family interviews, BIA/CDSS contacts, tribe inquiries); social worker’s reports and tribes’ written responses demonstrate compliance and no need to file every outgoing correspondence | Court: Affirmed — Department satisfied § 224.2(e) duties; social worker reports plus tribal responses supported finding ICWA does not apply; no statutory requirement to file all outgoing correspondence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (2000) (describing ICWA’s purpose to protect Indian children and tribes)
- In re A.W., 38 Cal.App.5th 655 (2019) (explaining scope and purpose of ICWA protections)
- In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (2020) (outlining § 224.2’s three-tier inquiry/notice duties)
- In re M.W., 49 Cal.App.5th 1034 (2020) (holding § 224.2 does not require specific method of filing inquiry documentation; efforts may be shown by reports, declarations, or testimony)