75 Cal.App.5th 575
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In December 2019 police found Mother pushing four‑month‑old S.S. in cold rain and suspected Mother was under the influence; Mother was arrested and S.S. taken into protective custody.
- At initial contacts Mother told social workers she had no Native American ancestry and later filed Judicial Council form ICWA‑020 stating she had no Indian ancestry "as far as I know."
- The child’s father remained unknown and unlocated despite DCFS search; DCFS completed a due‑diligence declaration for father and the court found it complete.
- Maternal grandmother later contacted DCFS, sought visits and placement, and participated intermittently in visits; she also expressed interest in adopting S.S. but DCFS recommended the child remain with the prospective adoptive foster parent and the court denied grandmother’s placement request.
- The juvenile court found no reason to know ICWA applied, terminated Mother’s parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing, and Mother appealed arguing DCFS and the court failed to satisfy their § 224.2 duty of inquiry (specifically failure to ask the maternal grandmother).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS and the court satisfied their § 224.2 duty of inquiry as to the mother | DCFS: Mother denied Indian ancestry; court had no reason to know ICWA applied as to Mother | Mother: Even if mother was asked, DCFS failed to ask maternal grandmother (an extended family member) about Indian ancestry | Court: Any failure to ask grandmother was harmless; court affirmed termination of parental rights |
| Whether any failure to inquire was prejudicial under California law | DCFS: Any state‑law inquiry error is harmless because readily obtainable information would have been revealed by grandmother or counsel if it existed | Mother: Failure to ask grandmother could have concealed Indian ancestry and affected placement preferences | Court: Applying Benjamin M. standard, reversal not required because grandmother and counsel had motive to raise ICWA if relevant and did not; thus error (if any) did not meaningfully affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (describing court and agency affirmative, continuing duty to inquire under § 224.2)
- In re Benjamin M., 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (agency failure to inquire requires reversal only when record shows readily obtainable information likely to bear on Indian status)
- In re A.C., 65 Cal.App.5th 1060 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (federal ICWA regulations do not require asking extended family; failure to inquire may be a state‑law error)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for prejudicial state‑law error is reasonable probability of a more favorable result)
- Estate of Fain, 75 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption that unreported oral proceedings support the trial court’s ruling)