In re N.D. CA2/6
B312044
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2021Background
- Father appealed the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights to twin children and the selection of adoption as the permanent plan under Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26.
- At detention Father reported possible Native American ancestry through his paternal grandmother/great-grandmother but did not know the tribe; Mother gave inconsistent statements and did not identify a tribe.
- CWS collected names for paternal relatives, attempted phone contact, mailed ICWA questionnaires (returned undeliverable), interviewed maternal great‑grandmother (who said there "might be" Native ancestry), and left voicemails for relatives.
- CWS sent ICWA-030 notices and a census-roll search request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior with all known ancestry information; those federal-mailings produced certified delivery receipts.
- After a prior appeal resulted in a conditional remand for additional ICWA inquiry, the juvenile court reaffirmed its finding that ICWA did not apply; the court later terminated reunification services and terminated Father’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWS and the juvenile court satisfied their duty of further inquiry under ICWA (§ 224.2) before terminating Father’s parental rights | CWS: its repeated attempts to contact Father and relatives, interviews conducted, and notices to BIA/Secretary satisfied the duty of inquiry | Father: CWS failed to diligently further inquire of Father, Mother, and available relatives (paternal grandfather, great‑grandmother, maternal relatives) before termination | Court affirmed: substantial evidence shows CWS fulfilled its ICWA inquiry obligations; court’s finding that ICWA did not apply was supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.D., 46 Cal.App.5th 620 (prior conditional remand for ICWA inquiry)
- In re E.W., 170 Cal.App.4th 396 (standard of review for ICWA inquiry is substantial evidence)
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (agency not required to pursue speculative leads without viable information)
- In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (agency inquiry sufficient where no viable lead or further information provided)
- In re D.S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (distinguishing inquiry and formal notice standards; limits on pursuing unproductive leads)
- In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (discussion of "reason to believe" vs. "reason to know" standards under ICWA)