81 Cal.App.5th 384
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2017 DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 petition removing nine‑year‑old J.W. after Mother allowed a registered sex offender access to the child; J.W. was detained and juvenile proceedings followed.
- When Mother later reengaged, both Mother and the alleged father completed Parental Notification of Indian Status forms denying known Indian ancestry; DCFS nonetheless did not ask maternal extended family members (grandmother, aunt, uncle) about Indian heritage despite having contact with them.
- J.W. was placed with maternal relatives during the dependency, and in March 2020 was placed with maternal grandmother; by November 2020 J.W. wanted to be adopted by her grandmother and no longer sought reunification with Mother.
- The juvenile court found Mother had not made sufficient progress, terminated reunification services, found J.W. adoptable, designated maternal grandmother as prospective adoptive parent, and terminated Mother’s parental rights in May 2021.
- Mother appealed only the ICWA‑related issue: she conceded the substantive grounds for termination but argued DCFS failed to satisfy its initial duty of inquiry under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(b) by not questioning extended family members.
- The Court of Appeal held DCFS erred by failing to question extended family members it had contact with, but concluded the error was harmless and affirmed the termination because placement with the maternal grandmother (an extended family member) and the record showing no indication of Indian ancestry eliminated prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS satisfied its initial duty to inquire under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(b) by asking participants about possible Indian child status | DCFS/Respondent: compliance was adequate because parents denied Indian ancestry and there was no evidence suggesting the denial was incorrect; any error was harmless because the child was placed with a maternal grandmother (an extended family placement) consistent with ICWA preferences | Mother/Appellant: DCFS failed to ask maternal extended family members it was in contact with whether J.W. might be an Indian child, violating § 224.2(b) and requiring relief | The court: DCFS erred by not asking extended family members it had contact with, but the error was harmless — the adoption placement with maternal grandmother and lack of evidence of Indian ancestry precluded prejudice; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (court must ask participants whether child may be an Indian child)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2016) (ICWA’s congressional purpose and protective objectives)
- In re K.R., 20 Cal.App.5th 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (California statutes provide parallel and sometimes broader ICWA protections)
- In re Dezi C., 79 Cal.App.5th 769 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (no prejudice where record shows parents’ denial of Indian ancestry is not reasonably doubtful)
- In re A.C., 75 Cal.App.5th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (discussion of ICWA’s historical purpose and congressional findings)
- In re Arturo A., 8 Cal.App.4th 229 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (emphasis on child’s right to stability and minimizing unnecessary custody shifts)