In re S.R. CA4/2, 64 Cal.App.5th 303

Children Isaiah (4) and Summer (1) were removed in 2017 after unsafe home conditions, parental substance abuse, and mother's mental illness; dependency petition filed and children detained.
At the March 2017 detention hearing both parents denied Indian ancestry and submitted ICWA-020 forms; the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply at the April 2017 disposition.
Maternal grandparents later sought placement; at a March 22, 2019 permanency hearing both grandparents completed ICWA inquiry forms, and the grandfather identified the children’s great-grandmother (Virginia G.) as a member of the Yaqui tribe of Arizona who lived with them.
The department did not pursue further ICWA inquiry or contact the Yaqui tribe; children were placed with the grandparents and the case proceeded toward adoption.
On November 24, 2020 the juvenile court took judicial notice of prior findings (including the April 2017 ICWA finding), terminated parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing, and ordered adoption; mother appealed solely on the ICWA issue.
The Court of Appeal held the grandparents’ specific disclosure triggered a duty to make further ICWA inquiry, conditionally reversed the termination orders, and remanded for the department to investigate and, if required, give tribal notice and for possible new § 366.26 proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grandparents’ disclosure that a great‑grandmother is a member of the Yaqui tribe triggered a duty to conduct further ICWA inquiry under Cal. law	Mother: grandparents’ specific information gave "reason to believe" the children may be Indian children and required further inquiry and tribe contact	County: earlier parental denials and the April 2017 ICWA finding meant no further inquiry was required; relies on Austin J. narrowing the inquiry trigger	Court: grandparents’ specific identification of a living Yaqui ancestor constituted information suggesting possible tribal membership and thus triggered the duty to make further inquiry, including contacting the tribe
Whether failure to conduct the required further inquiry requires reversal/remand of the § 366.26 orders	Mother: failure to investigate ICWA compliance undermines termination; remand required for inquiry and, if warranted, new ICWA‑compliant proceedings	County: existing findings and previous inquiry made further action unnecessary; any error was harmless	Court: conditionally reversed and remanded for the department to perform the mandated inquiry/notice; if inquiry establishes tribal status, new § 366.26 hearings required; if not, original orders may be reinstated

In re Austin J., 47 Cal. App. 5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (court previously read "reason to believe" narrowly; relied on by county)
In re T.G., 58 Cal. App. 5th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (emphasizes tribes determine membership and supports broader duty to inquire)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (tribal sovereign authority to determine membership)