In re L.V.A. CA4/1, D078493

Infant L.V.A. was removed at birth in Jan 2019 for maternal substance abuse and placed with relatives of a presumed father; genetic testing later identified J.S. (Father) as the biological father.
Father claimed Native ancestry inconsistently as “Blackfeet” and “Blackfoot,” and listed several relatives who might have more information.
The Agency contacted Father, left voicemails for his brother, spoke with a sister‑in‑law about placement (not ancestry), and did not document outreach to a named paternal relative.
The Agency sent an inquiry letter to the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, which replied that L.V.A. was not on tribal rolls and not eligible under its blood quantum rules.
Father filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petition asserting Indian ancestry and seeking reunification; the juvenile court denied the petition and found the Agency’s ICWA inquiry sufficient.
The Court of Appeal held the ICWA inquiry was inadequate and conditionally reversed/remanded for further ICWA inquiry, but found formal ICWA notice was not required on the record before it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Agency and juvenile court satisfied ICWA inquiry duties	Agency: conducted sufficient inquiry (interviewed Father, contacted relatives, sent letter to Blackfeet Tribe of Montana)	Father: Agency failed to interview/all extended relatives, failed to clarify “Blackfoot” v. “Blackfeet,” and did not contact BIA/other tribes	Court: Inquiry was inadequate; reversal and remand for the Agency to complete required ICWA inquiry
Whether formal ICWA notice to tribes was required during inquiry stage	Agency: No notice required absent a "reason to know"; only a "reason to believe" existed here	Father: Agency should have given formal notice to the Blackfeet Tribe (and possibly other tribes)	Court: No error in not giving formal notice on this record because criteria for "reason to know" were not met; notice may become required if further inquiry yields qualifying information

In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (ICWA purpose and context)
In re A.W., 38 Cal.App.5th 655 (2019) (discussing ICWA standards and recent statutory/regulatory changes)
In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (2020) (three distinct ICWA duties and standard of review)
In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (2012) (duty to inquire at initial contact)
In re K.R., 20 Cal.App.5th 701 (2018) (agency obligation to seek information from extended family)
In re Kadence P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1376 (2015) (Blackfoot/Blackfeet confusion and tribal identification issues)
In re L.S., Jr., 230 Cal.App.4th 1183 (2014) (clarifying duties when "Blackfoot/Blackfeet" ancestry is claimed)
In re N.G., 27 Cal.App.5th 474 (2018) (failure to comply with ICWA inquiry generally requires reversal)