81 Cal.App.5th 309
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Rylei S. was declared a dependent child and removed from parents after the juvenile court sustained a §300 petition alleging parental violence and substance abuse.
- Mother Natasha filed an ICWA-020 form stating under penalty of perjury she “may have Indian ancestry — Cherokee — on MGF’s side,” and said maternal grandmother had more information.
- The juvenile court ordered DCFS to inquire of the maternal grandmother and send notices; DCFS interviewed only the maternal grandmother, sent incomplete notices, and did not meaningfully interview other extended relatives (including the maternal grandfather) or contact the Cherokee Tribe/BIA.
- On June 14, 2021 the court found ICWA did not apply, declared Rylei dependent and ordered disposition; DCFS later conceded it violated §224.2 and rule 5.481(a)(4).
- DCFS argued the failure was harmless because the record contains no proof Rylei is an Indian child and invoked older precedent; mother (Natasha) appealed, arguing remand is required for full inquiry.
- The Court of Appeal held DCFS and the juvenile court failed to satisfy the statutory duty of inquiry/further inquiry and remanded conditionally for full compliance with ICWA and state rules.
Issues
| Issue | DCFS (Plaintiff) Argument | Natasha (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS satisfied its duty of inquiry / further inquiry (§224.2 & rule 5.481(a)(4)) | DCFS concedes some procedural violations but argues lack of evidence on appeal that child is Indian makes any error harmless | DCFS failed to make required further inquiry after mother reported possible Cherokee ancestry; agency must interview extended family, contact tribe/BIA | DCFS failed to conduct required further inquiry; interview and tribal/BIA contacts were inadequate; duty rests with both DCFS and the court |
| Whether the ICWA-related statutory errors were harmless (need for offer of proof) | Error is harmless absent an offer of proof or affirmative showing on appeal that the child is an Indian child; reliance on In re H.B. | No offer of proof should be required; failure to investigate deprived the record of information and makes prejudice presumed under current statutory scheme | Harmless-error defense rejected here; appellate court distinguishes In re H.B. and holds no parent-facing offer of proof is required where agency failed to perform statutorily mandated inquiry |
| Whether the juvenile court properly found ICWA did not apply without ensuring adequate inquiry | Court’s finding should be upheld because notices were sent and mother’s ICWA form was on file | Court erred by finding ICWA inapplicable without ensuring DCFS satisfied its duties; court must ensure adequate inquiry and due diligence | Juvenile court erred: it must determine on the record that DCFS performed adequate further inquiry and, if ICWA triggered, ensure proper notice; remand required with directions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Antonio R., 76 Cal.App.5th 421 (2022) (explains prejudice analysis when agency fails to conduct adequate ICWA inquiry)
- In re Y.W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (2021) (agency’s failure to interview extended family can make prejudice presumptive; no offer of proof required)
- In re H.B., 161 Cal.App.4th 115 (2008) (pre-2018 decision finding harmless error where mother denied Indian ancestry and agency had documented inquiry)
- In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275 (2020) (duty to inquire begins at initial contact and continues throughout proceedings)
- In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (2020) (statements of possible ancestry can trigger further inquiry even if tribe not identified)
- In re Josiah T., 71 Cal.App.5th 388 (2021) (grandmother’s vague Cherokee claim triggered duty of further inquiry)
- In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (1997) (framework for when failure to perform mandatory duty is harmless versus requiring remand)
- In re Rebecca R., 143 Cal.App.4th 1426 (2006) (older authority discussing offer-of-proof and harmlessness where parent denied ancestry)