46 Cal.App.5th 620
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Santa Barbara County CWS filed dependency petitions after one-month-old twins were removed from parental custody for "failure to thrive."
- Father (appellant) reported Native American ancestry through his paternal grandmother but could not identify a specific tribe; he provided names/dates for father, grandmother, and great‑grandparents.
- CWS obtained ancestry information, mailed Father an ICWA questionnaire, and stated in its disposition report that ICWA “does or may apply.”
- At the jurisdiction hearing the children were declared dependents under section 300; at disposition the court ordered continued foster care placement and reunification services for Father.
- The juvenile court did not make findings on ICWA applicability nor find that ICWA notice was complete before the disposition hearing.
Issues
| Issue | CWS (Plaintiff/Respondent) Argument | Father (Defendant/Appellant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWS and the juvenile court complied with ICWA inquiry/notice before continuing foster care placement | ICWA challenge is premature because ICWA investigation was ongoing and did not yet affect placement | CWS failed to complete required ICWA inquiry/notice; disposition ordering continued foster care was improper without notice sent/received at least 10 days before the hearing | Court conditionally reversed and remanded for limited purpose of ICWA compliance; if ICWA does not apply after proper inquiry/notice, disposition is reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jennifer A., 103 Cal.App.4th 692 (remand required where ICWA notice was not sent before a disposition that sought continuation of foster care placement)
- In re M.R., 7 Cal.App.5th 886 (ICWA challenge premature where child was placed with another parent and agency did not seek foster care or termination)
- In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 (federal ICWA regulations implementing notice/treatment obligations are binding on state courts)