79 Cal.App.5th 1068
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Four children were detained in Oct. 2015 after safety/mental-health concerns; this appeal concerns Q.M. and P.M.
- At detention mother signed ICWA-020 and repeatedly told DCFS (2015, 2016, 2017) she had no Indian ancestry; father initially said he "may" have Cherokee ancestry at the detention hearing but later denied Indian heritage and refused to cooperate with ICWA inquiries.
- The juvenile court ordered DCFS to investigate father’s claimed Cherokee heritage; parents were largely uncooperative, moved out of state, and did not provide extended-family contact information.
- DCFS made multiple attempts to contact parents and a paternal aunt/relative, mailed ICWA forms and notices, and ultimately sent notices to Cherokee tribes, the BIA, and Secretary of the Interior; the tribes responded that the children were not eligible for membership.
- At the section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court found DCFS had conducted an adequate ICWA inquiry, there was no reason to know the children were Indian children, and terminated parental rights as to Q.M. and P.M.; mother appealed only the ICWA inquiry issue.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS adequately investigated mother’s possible Indian ancestry | Mother: DCFS should have contacted extended maternal relatives despite mother’s denials | DCFS: mother repeatedly denied ancestry and did not provide relatives’ names or contacts, limiting inquiry | Court: DCFS inquiry adequate—mother’s repeated denials and failure to identify relatives justified no further inquiry |
| Whether DCFS adequately investigated father’s claimed Cherokee ancestry | Mother: father’s CID hearing statement created a “reason to believe” and DCFS should have contacted his Louisiana relatives | DCFS: father later disavowed the claim, refused to cooperate, provided no usable contact info for relatives despite DCFS attempts | Court: DCFS inquiry adequate—father’s later denials, lack of contact info, and uncooperativeness meant no further inquiry was required |
| Whether ICWA notice was deficient | Mother: notices lacked full ancestral data so were inadequate | DCFS: notice was only required if there was "reason to know"; no statutory criteria for "reason to know" were met | Court: Notices’ alleged deficiencies were legally irrelevant because there was no "reason to know" ICWA applied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2016) (explains ICWA purpose and duty to inquire)
- In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (agencies and courts have affirmative, continuing duty to inquire)
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (parental denials can be substantial evidence supporting no further inquiry)
- In re Charles W., 66 Cal.App.5th 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (agency and court inquiry adequate where parent denied ancestry in court)
- In re Antonio R., 76 Cal.App.5th 421 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (agency must inquire of extended family despite parental denial in some circumstances)
- In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (no further inquiry required absent evidence giving reason to believe child is Indian)
- In re K.M., 172 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (agency satisfied duty where family refused or failed to cooperate)
- In re C.Y., 208 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (agency not required to conduct extensive independent investigations such as tracing sealed adoption records)