91 Cal.App.5th 672
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Mother (A.C.) has five children who were detained on October 21, 2021; section 300 petitions were filed alleging abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse.
- Detention hearing: parents and maternal aunt denied Indian ancestry; Mother filed ICWA‑020 denying Indian status; R.O. (father) later filed an ICWA‑020 that checked a box indicating an ancestor was a tribal member but left tribe/ancestor blank.
- All five children were taken into protective custody pursuant to a court warrant under Welf. & Inst. Code § 340 (protective custody), then delivered to the social worker.
- CFS attached ICWA‑010(A) forms noting Mother and (for two children) R.O. provided no reason to believe the children were Indian; further follow‑up interviews included repeated denials by R.O.
- The juvenile court sustained jurisdictional allegations, found ICWA does not apply, removed the children, ordered reunification services for Mother, and bypassed services for R.O.
- Mother appealed, arguing CFS failed its initial‑inquiry duty under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(b) by not asking extended family and interested persons about Indian status; she also pointed to R.O.’s checked ICWA‑020 box as an unresolved discrepancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CFS/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 224.2(b) required CFS to question extended family/others about Indian status here | § 224.2(b) mandates asking extended family/others in initial inquiry; CFS failed to ask available relatives and friends, so ICWA finding must be vacated and remanded | § 224.2(b) applies only when a child was placed into temporary custody under § 306 (or probation § 307); here children were taken under § 340 protective‑custody warrants, so the expanded inquiries were not triggered | Court held § 224.2(b) did not apply because children were taken under § 340 warrants (not § 306/§ 307); no error in initial inquiry duties as to extended family under subdivision (b) |
| Whether R.O.’s checked box on ICWA‑020 created reason to know/triggered further inquiry or notice | R.O.’s ICWA‑020 created a discrepancy that was never clarified and thus required further investigation/notice | R.O. repeatedly denied Indian ancestry on the record and in interviews; CFS followed up after the form; the single checked box without tribe/ancestor identification did not create reason to know | Court held no error: repeated denials and follow‑up meant no reason to know was established and no further inquiry/notice was required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (discusses terminology and ICWA context)
- In re Robert F., 90 Cal.App.5th 492 (holds § 224.2(b) inquiry applies only to children taken into temporary custody under § 306/§ 307)
- In re Adrian L., 86 Cal.App.5th 342 (addresses statutory structure distinguishing warrantless temporary custody from warrant removals)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.) (explains exigency standard permitting warrantless child removals)
- Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.) (federal standards for child removal exigency)
- Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 1029 (principle against statutory surplusage)