18 Cal.5th 271
Cal.2025Background
- The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and California law impose a duty on courts and welfare agencies to inquire whether children in dependency proceedings are Indian children, triggering special protections.
- In October 2021, five children of A.C. (Mother) were removed from their home with a protective custody warrant (section 340) and placed in temporary custody with San Bernardino County Children and Family Services.
- Both parents generally denied Indian ancestry, though an ICWA form for the father of two children referenced possible tribal connection.
- The dependency court found ICWA inapplicable and removed the children from parental custody, granting reunification services.
- On appeal, Mother argued the county failed to conduct an adequate inquiry with extended family regarding Indian heritage, as required by former section 224.2(b).
- The Court of Appeal held the duty did not apply when removal was by warrant, prompting Supreme Court review and legislative change via Assembly Bill 81 in 2024.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the extended-family ICWA inquiry duty apply when a child is removed with a warrant (pre-AB 81)? | County only had duty in warrantless removals under former § 224.2(b); warrants trigger a narrower duty. | Duty existed in all removals to temporary custody regardless of method; AB 81 only clarified this. | Yes, extended-family inquiry duty applies whether removal was with or without a warrant; AB 81 was clarifying, not changing the law. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dezi C., 16 Cal.5th 1112 (Cal. 2024) (clarifies ICWA initial inquiry duties and procedural safeguards)
- In re Ja.O., 91 Cal.App.5th 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (addressed the scope of the inquiry duty under former § 224.2)
- In re Delila D., 93 Cal.App.5th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (interpreted inquiry duty to apply regardless of removal method)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) (amendments clarifying ambiguous statutes may be applied to prior conduct)
- Carter v. California Department of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal.4th 914 (Cal. 2006) (explains when statutory clarifications apply retroactively)