in the Interest of B.W. and C. W., Children, 12-17-00306-CV

Children B.W. and C.W. were the subjects of a DFPS petition (filed Aug. 23, 2016; amended May 19, 2017) seeking protection, conservatorship, and termination of parental rights; DFPS named itself temporary managing conservator.
Trial court terminated mother J.W.’s parental rights after finding statutory grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), and incapacity under §161.003(a); father’s rights were also adjudicated but he is not a party to this appeal.
DFPS had filed a notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Sept. 2, 2016, requesting a determination of the children’s Indian status; multiple court reports and petitions marked the children as “reported as an Indian child” or “status yet to be determined.”
The record contains DFPS’s notice to the BIA, but does not show the Secretary of the Interior made documented efforts to locate/notify a tribe, parents, or Indian custodians, nor that the trial court held an ICWA-status hearing.
The Court of Appeals concluded the ICWA inquiry and findings were required and remanded to the trial court to (1) hold an ICWA hearing within 45 days to determine Indian-child status and (2) include findings regarding the Secretary’s documented efforts, with a supplemental record due to the court within 15 days of that hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to determine ICWA status and provide statutorily mandated notice/inquiry	J.W. argued DFPS and the court failed to complete the ICWA inquiry and required notice/determination before final termination	DFPS argued it provided notice to the BIA and complied with ICWA notice requirements	Court held DFPS’s BIA notice complied with statutory notice, but the record lacked the Secretary’s documented efforts and a court hearing/determination; remand required for ICWA inquiry and findings
Whether information in DFPS reports triggered the ICWA duty to inquire/notify	J.W. relied on reports and petitions reporting potential Indian status to show the duty was triggered	DFPS relied on having filed notice to BIA as satisfying its obligations	Court held the reports and petitions gave the court reason to believe the children may be Indian, triggering mandatory inquiry and notification duties

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (describing Congress’s purpose in enacting ICWA)
In re W.D.H., 43 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (recognizing parent’s standing to challenge ICWA notice)
In re R.R., 294 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (trial court has reason-to-know standard when parent or records indicate possible Indian status)
In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (discussing BIA guidelines and duty to verify Indian status)
In re J.W., 498 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (reversing termination for inadequate ICWA notice and remanding for proper notice)
In re N.N.E., 752 N.E.2d 1 (Iowa 2008) (addressing ICWA-related procedural issues)