48 Cal.App.5th 412
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Children (ages 2 and 3) were detained after domestic-violence incidents in June 2019 in which Father allegedly strangled Mother while the children were present; Mother was later arrested and detained. The Agency filed a §300 dependency petition and the children were removed.
- Mother filed an ICWA-020 form indicating she “may” have Native American ancestry but did not identify any tribe or relatives to contact; at a hearing she said her parents were deceased and had no one to inquire with.
- The Agency’s case plan required Mother to complete services (individual counseling, parenting program, substance abuse assessment/testing) and included the broad phrase “follow all recommendations” for clinicians’ future recommendations.
- At a contested dispositional hearing the Agency defended the broad phrase as necessary to avoid service gaps; clinicians testified it would be used for customary supplemental services (anger management, parent/child labs, etc.). The juvenile court added an exclusion for psychological evaluations and otherwise approved the plan.
- The Court of Appeal held the unqualified “follow all recommendations” language fails to satisfy Welfare & Institutions Code §16501.1(g)(2) (case plan must explain how planned services are appropriate to meet specific goals), but found the error harmless on the record; it also held the court/Agency satisfied ICWA inquiry and notice obligations. Dispositional orders were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unqualified “follow all recommendations” in the case plan complies with §16501.1(g)(2) | Agency: needed flexibility to implement clinician-identified services promptly; statutory scheme allows agency to modify plans and court has broad dispositional authority | Mother: phrase is overbroad, non‑specific, abdicates required identification of services and how they meet plan goals | The phrase as drafted violates §16501.1(g)(2) because unknown future services cannot be shown "appropriate" to goals; error was harmless on these facts (plan otherwise constrained; court invited §388 review); affirmed with caveat. |
| Whether the court/Agency had duty to further inquire/serve ICWA notice based on Mother’s statement she “may” have Native American ancestry | Agency: Mother’s vague statement without tribe or relatives is insufficient to give reason to believe the children are Indian; no further inquiry/notice required | Mother: her statement triggered an affirmative duty to inquire and notify BIA/tribes | Held: Mother’s unelaborated claim that she “may” have ancestry did not create reason to believe the children are Indian; initial inquiry duty satisfied (court asked, Mother had no one to ask); no ICWA error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (discussing limits on ordering services not reasonably designed to cure conditions leading to jurisdiction)
- In re Basilio T., 4 Cal.App.4th 155 (on when substance‑abuse components may be added to a plan)
- In re M.S., 41 Cal.App.5th 568 (harmless‑error analysis in juvenile dependency proceedings)
- In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152 (parental claim of possible Native ancestry insufficient to trigger ICWA notice)
- In re Jeremiah G., 172 Cal.App.4th 1514 (same: vague ancestral claim not enough for ICWA notice)
- In re Hunter W., 200 Cal.App.4th 1454 (discussing the agency/court duty of inquiry under ICWA)