In re M.B. CA2/7, 80 Cal.App.5th 617

M.B., born 2015, was removed from mother Liah after a dependency petition alleging maternal substance abuse; the court ultimately held a §366.26 hearing on August 31, 2021 and terminated parental rights.
At intake and detention Liah reported possible American Indian (Blackfeet/Blackfoot) ancestry on her paternal/maternal line (naming maternal grandfather Lonnie B. Jr. and great‑grandfather Lonnie B. Sr.).
The Department checked that ICWA "may" apply, sent notices to the Blackfeet Tribe, BIA, and Secretary of the Interior, but its initial investigation did not secure birthdates for Lonnie Sr. or Jr., did not interview several maternal relatives (including the maternal grandmother), and did not obtain key identifying details.
The juvenile court twice found no reason to know ICWA applied (December 2018 and May 2021) after receiving Department reports that the tribe’s roll did not list M.B. and the tribe replied it had no record of enrollment.
While this appeal was pending, the Department reinterviewed relatives and filed a last minute information report describing those postjudgment efforts; the Department urged that those efforts mooted Liah’s ICWA claims.
The Court of Appeal (Div. 7) affirmed the denial of Liah’s §388 petition, conditionally affirmed the termination order, and remanded for full compliance with ICWA inquiry and notice requirements, rejecting the claim that postjudgment remedial efforts mooted the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of DCFS ICWA inquiry and notice	Liah: DCFS failed to interview available maternal relatives and omitted required ancestor birthdates from ICWA notices, so inquiry/notice duties were not satisfied.	DCFS: initially contended notices were sent and tribe responded; later argued postjudgment interviews cured any deficiency.	Held: DCFS failed to conduct adequate inquiry before termination; notices omitted required information; conditional reversal and remand for full ICWA compliance.
Whether postjudgment remedial efforts moot the appeal	Liah: appeal should proceed because adequacy must be judged on record before trial court at time of order.	DCFS: postjudgment interviews and report show further inquiry was done, mooting the appeal.	Held: Postjudgment remedial efforts do not moot the appeal; agency cannot cure ICWA defects after a final termination order as juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to reopen it — appeal not mooted.
Juvenile court’s duty to ensure adequacy of investigation	Liah: court failed to verify DCFS met its further‑inquiry obligations.	DCFS: (implicit) court may rely on agency reports and tribe’s response.	Held: Juvenile court must ascertain that the agency conducted adequate inquiry; here the court passively accepted DCFS reports and must direct full compliance on remand.

In re K.M., 242 Cal.App.4th 450 (2015) (postjudgment ICWA investigations do not moot appellate challenges to termination orders)
In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (2020) (duty to inquire about possible Indian ancestry begins at initial contact and requires further inquiry when reason to believe exists)
In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (2020) (ICWA notice must include detailed identifying information about parents, grandparents, great‑grandparents; omissions require vacatur and remand)
In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (2003) (appeal reviews correctness of judgment as of time of rendition; postjudgment matters generally not considered)
In re Vicks, 56 Cal.4th 274 (2013) (appellate courts may judicially notice existence of court documents but not the truth of hearsay statements contained in them)
In re Josiah Z., 36 Cal.4th 664 (2005) (appellate court may take additional evidence under CCP §909 in limited circumstances to assess mootness or other issues)