In re T.G., 58 Cal.App.5th 275

Background:

Four children (Jazmine 16, T.G. 14, N.G. 12, P.G. 8) were declared dependents, removed from parents, and placed with nonrelated extended family who later became legal guardians.
Tamara (mother) reported possible Cherokee ancestry (maternal side) and possible Native ancestry through paternal great-grandfather Theodore S.; she said an aunt might have more information; she also referenced "Khalifian"/Califian ancestry on paternal side.
Department completed initial ICWA forms but never sent any ICWA notice to tribes or BIA; some reports alternated between stating ICWA may apply and ICWA does not apply.
At the §366.26 hearings the juvenile court ordered legal guardianships and terminated jurisdiction; parents appealed solely on ICWA-compliance grounds.
The Court of Appeal held the Department failed to undertake adequate further inquiry under ICWA/California law, the juvenile court failed to ensure appropriate inquiry and findings, and conditionally reversed and remanded for full ICWA compliance.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dept)	Defendant's Argument (Tamara/Jason)	Held
1. Whether Dept and court complied with the duty of further inquiry under §224.2(e)	Tamara's statements were too vague/only a bare possibility of ancestry and did not trigger further inquiry; Austin J. supports a narrow triggering standard	Mother and maternal grandmother gave specific identifiers (tribe Cherokee, ancestor Theodore S., aunt with details) creating reason to believe ICWA may apply and requiring further inquiry	Dept and court failed to adequately investigate; further inquiry was required; remand for thorough investigation; rejected Austin J.'s narrow reading
2. Whether court-ordered notice to Cherokee Nation was required and whether failure to send was error	The court's oral "strike that" negated any requirement to send notice to Cherokee Nation	The court plainly ordered notice to Cherokee Nation and later reaffirmed that order; Dept failed to comply	Dept did not send the ordered notice; error acknowledged but presently harmless pending further inquiry; must be corrected on remand if ICWA reason-to-know is established
3. Whether the juvenile court made required ICWA findings and whether minute orders conflicted with transcript	Minute order stated court had no reason to know ICWA applied	Transcript and Department reports support that no definitive finding was made and that ICWA may apply	Court erred by failing to make on-the-record ICWA findings; remand for the court to ensure findings and compliance
4. Whether Jason (biological father) has standing to appeal ICWA compliance	Jason never appeared in dependency hence is a "mere biological father" without standing	ICWA defines "parent" to include biological parents; non-Indian parents may appeal ICWA compliance issues	Jason has standing to raise ICWA compliance on appeal

Key Cases Cited

In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (explaining ICWA purposes and federal notice requirements)
In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (describing ICWA limitations on state court actions)
In re Abbigail A., 1 Cal.5th 83 (judicial rules entitled to deference; guidance on ICWA implementation)
In re Austin J., 47 Cal.App.5th 870 (case adopting a narrower view of when further inquiry is triggered)
In re D.F., 55 Cal.App.5th 558 (interpretation of duty to inquire under amended §224.2)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribes are final arbiters of membership)
In re A.M., 47 Cal.App.5th 303 (applying current ICWA statutes to appeals)
In re Elizabeth M., 19 Cal.App.5th 768 (need to investigate family claims of Indian ancestry)
In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (burden of inquiry does not rest primarily on the family)
In re Breanna S., 8 Cal.App.5th 636 (discussing harmlessness and remedy for ICWA notice failures)