53 Cal.App.5th 347
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- December 2016: San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS) detained two sisters after Mother threatened harm; Mother had just moved from Louisiana where J.W. (younger child) had been born and A.W. (father of J.W.) lived.
- CFS filed Welf. & Inst. Code §300 petitions; juvenile court detained the children and made no UCCJEA findings at the detention or later jurisdictional/dispositional hearings.
- February 2017: court found allegations true and ordered reunification services; ICWA was found not to apply and was not repeatedly litigated below.
- A.W. initially lived in Louisiana but moved to California before the 12‑month review and thereafter resided in California; CFS never raised UCCJEA jurisdiction and the juvenile court never addressed it.
- ICWA-related fact: L.M.’s father D.M. at one point suggested possible Indian ancestry but later told the court and filed ICWA‑020 stating he had no Indian ancestry as far as he knew.
- Procedural posture: reunification services were terminated, parental rights were terminated at a §366.26 hearing (Nov. 2019), and on appeal Mother challenges ICWA inquiry while A.W. challenges UCCJEA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFS satisfied its ICWA duty of inquiry as to possible Indian ancestry (D.M.). | CFS: duty satisfied because D.M. repeatedly stated he had no Indian ancestry and the court accepted his representations. | Mother: CFS failed to follow up (e.g., did not interview D.M.’s mother) and thus did not adequately inquire. | Duty of inquiry satisfied: D.M.’s consistent statements that he had no Indian ancestry dispensed with further inquiry; ICWA inquiry claim denied. |
| Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA such that orders (including termination) are void and must be reversed. | CFS (respondent): UCCJEA requirements are mandatory but do not implicate a court’s fundamental (nonwaivable) jurisdiction; failure to raise UCCJEA below is forfeiture. | A.W.: juvenile court lacked proper UCCJEA jurisdiction (Louisiana likely had jurisdiction), so orders must be reversed. | UCCJEA jurisdictional rules are mandatory but do not govern fundamental jurisdiction; A.W. forfeited the issue by not raising it below; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, 2 Cal.5th 330 (Cal. 2017) (distinguishes mandatory statutory requirements from nonwaivable fundamental jurisdiction and explains forfeiture rules)
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 15 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1997) (administrative forum-selection procedures are mandatory but do not necessarily divest courts of fundamental jurisdiction)
- In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (describes agencies’ and courts’ affirmative, continuing duty to inquire under ICWA)
- In re C.A., 24 Cal.App.5th 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (parent’s change from indicating possible Native ancestry to denying it can satisfy duty of inquiry)
- Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1982) (state interest in finality in child‑custody disputes is unusually strong)
- Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn., 7 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1972) (mandatory venue rules protect policy interests but do not automatically render judgments void)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003) (statutory restriction on collateral attacks to protect finality of termination orders)