In re K.M. CA1/5, A162027

In August 2018 the Contra Costa County Bureau filed a dependency petition under Welfare & Institutions Code § 300 alleging mother failed to provide basic necessities for daughter K.M., then age seven; the child was detained and declared a dependent.
Mother completed an ICWA-020 form stating the "father" might have Blackfoot ancestry through paternal grandmother/great-grandmother; mother denied any Indian ancestry herself.
At the November 2018 jurisdictional hearing the court, relying on mother’s ICWA-020 and counsel’s statements, found no evidence ICWA applied and deemed ICWA inapplicable; neither mother nor the (alleged) father were present, and no one disputed the finding.
Thomas M. first appeared in court in October 2020 and was declared K.M.’s presumed father; the Bureau and court did not ask him about Indian ancestry or order him to complete an ICWA-020 form.
In December 2020 the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and, at the permanency planning (§ 366.26) hearing, terminated her parental rights; mother appealed, asserting the Bureau and court failed to satisfy ICWA inquiry duties as to Thomas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bureau and juvenile court failed to satisfy ICWA inquiry duties by not asking Thomas about possible Indian ancestry or directing him to complete ICWA-020	Mother: failure to inquire of Thomas requires conditional reversal and remand for ICWA compliance	Respondents: inquiry unnecessary because Thomas lacked an established biological connection to the child; mother denied Indian ancestry and no prejudice shown	Court: Affirmed. Any additional inquiry as to Thomas was not required where biological paternity was not established; failure was harmless and remand would unjustifiably delay permanency

In re E.G., 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 (discussing ICWA’s purpose and biological-parent focus)
In re S.R., 64 Cal.App.5th 303 (juvenile court and agency have affirmative, continuing duty to inquire whether child may be an Indian child)
In re A.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 832 (failure to ask a parent about Indian heritage can require limited reversal unless harmless)
In re C.A., 24 Cal.App.5th 511 (presumed-father status is not equivalent to biological parent for ICWA purposes)
In re Daniel M., 110 Cal.App.4th 703 (alleged father without established paternity cannot invoke ICWA protections)
In re B.R., 176 Cal.App.4th 773 (child cannot be an Indian child absent biological or adoptive relationship to tribal member)
In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (agencies and courts should err on the side of thorough ICWA inquiry)
In re H.B., 161 Cal.App.4th 115 (failure to comply with ICWA inquiry requirements can be harmless where no indication of Indian heritage)