84 Cal.App.5th 933
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Child Oscar H. was placed with his maternal grandmother shortly after birth (July 2020) and remained there throughout the dependency.
- Mother denied Native American ancestry; maternal grandmother said family is Guatemalan; mother reported paternal grandmother was Mexican. The father had a history of homelessness, substance use, mental-health issues, and prior child-welfare referrals.
- DCFS communicated with the father multiple times (meetings and calls) but did not ask him or paternal relatives about possible Indian ancestry; it also did not inquire of the maternal grandfather.
- Juvenile court initially found no reason to know ICWA applied as to the mother and later found no reason to know as to the father (based on mother’s statements). Parental rights were terminated (Feb. 17, 2022) and the maternal grandmother designated prospective adoptive parent.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal held DCFS’s initial inquiry under Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2 was deficient as to the father and paternal relatives (and directed inquiry of the maternal grandfather), and conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA compliance and any necessary notice to tribes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Sylvia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS satisfied its initial inquiry duty under § 224.2 (ask father, paternal relatives, maternal grandfather) | DCFS suggested it reasonably relied on available information (belief father’s family Mexican), argued father’s instability made inquiry impracticable, and later argued any error was harmless | Mother argued DCFS never asked the father or paternal relatives and failed to inquire of maternal grandfather, violating mandatory ICWA/§ 224.2 duties | Court: DCFS erred. It failed to ask the father and paternal relatives (and should also seek maternal grandfather); mandatory duty not excused by instability. Remand ordered for full inquiry |
| Whether the ICWA inquiry error was prejudicial (harmlessness) | DCFS argued error was harmless because child was placed with maternal grandmother (ICWA placement preference) and father was unavailable | Mother argued error prejudicial: proper inquiry could have led to tribal notice, possible tribal jurisdiction/intervention, different placement or preservation of tribal interests and culture | Court: Error prejudicial. Placement with maternal grandmother did not establish harmlessness; remand required so tribes can be notified and may intervene; termination conditionally reversed until inquiry/notice complete |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (discusses parties’ duty to inform court if new ICWA information arises)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (background on Congress’s intent behind ICWA and state responsibilities)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (procedural point on intervenor/party status and effect of intervention)
- In re A.C., 75 Cal.App.5th 1009 (discussion of ICWA harms and related jurisprudence)
- Jones v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.4th 92 (waiver of undeveloped or unbriefed issues)