Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. S.S.
217 Cal. App. 4th 610
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- S.E., born 2005, was detained in 2009 after concerns about neglect and medical issues; parents abducted him during a monitored visit and fled, leading to criminal proceedings.
- Father later led authorities to Mother and S.E.; the child was returned to maternal grandparents and placed in their care, where he improved and the grandparents sought guardianship rather than adoption.
- DCFS recommended no reunification services based on the parents' abduction; the juvenile court denied reunification and later ordered legal guardianship in July 2012.
- At intake Mother reported Cherokee ancestry (maternal grandmother said her grandfather was Cherokee); Father indicated possible Sioux and Choctaw ancestry. DCFS sent ICWA notices to Cherokee tribes but did not fully investigate maternal ancestral names and did not notify tribes Father identified.
- Tribes that received the (erroneous/incomplete) Cherokee notices responded that S.E. was not an Indian child; the juvenile court found ICWA inapplicable and proceeded to guardianship without full ICWA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS satisfied ICWA inquiry/notice duties regarding Mother’s Cherokee ancestry | DCFS/respondent contended its notice was sufficient and omissions were harmless | Mother argued DCFS failed to provide known ancestor (maternal great-great-grandfather) information making notice inadequate | Reversed and remanded: omission of known ancestor information was not harmless; DCFS must provide corrected notice including the ancestor’s identifying information |
| Whether DCFS satisfied ICWA notice duties regarding Father’s claimed Sioux and Choctaw ancestry | DCFS acknowledged oversight and urged limited remand without vacating guardianship | Father argued lack of notice to tribes he identified required reversal | Reversed and remanded: failure to notify the Sioux and Choctaw tribes required vacating the guardianship order until proper ICWA notice/inquiry completed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cheyanne F., 164 Cal.App.4th 571 (agency must provide all known information about parents, grandparents, great-grandparents in ICWA notice)
- In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 (ICWA notice defects reviewed for prejudice; errors may be harmless in limited circumstances)
- In re Antoinette S., 104 Cal.App.4th 1401 (discusses harmless error analysis for ICWA notice omissions)
- In re Alice M., 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (parents need not forfeit ICWA notice claims to protect potential tribes’ interests)
- In re Marinna J., 90 Cal.App.4th 731 (ICWA notice provisions protect tribal interests; defects may be reviewed on appeal)
- Nicole K. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 779 (failure to give ICWA notice requires orders to be vacated and matter remanded for proper notice)
- In re Brooke C., 127 Cal.App.4th 377 (discussed but distinguished regarding whether ICWA errors require vacatur)