Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. R.N.
218 Cal. App. 4th 1246
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DCFS filed a section 300 petition for D.N. and A.T. in June 2010 alleging parental substance abuse and inability to care for children.
- Mother claimed Choctaw ancestry; notices were sent to Choctaw Nation and BIA, while father claimed possible Cherokee ancestry.
- ICWA notices to Cherokee and Choctaw tribes were repeatedly renoticed and incomplete; tribes responded not eligible for membership.
- A 387 petition was sustained; reunification services were terminated and the case proceeded with ICWA notice issues stayed pending responses.
- By December 2011 and into 2012, Tribes reiterated that the children were not eligible for membership; DCFS eventually found notices complete for ICWA purposes.
- The court terminated parental rights, freeing D.N. and A.T. for adoption; parents appealed the ICWA notice issues and continuances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA notice to Cherokee tribes was adequate | Father contends notice lacked info about his lineage; Cherokee request for full father details required more data. | DCFS argues no ICWA notice was required as father retracted Cherokee claim and no Indian status implication remained. | No ICWA notice required; otherwise, notices were adequate and sufficient. |
| Whether failure to include 1906 Freedmen Roll data invalidated Choctaw notices | Mother argues missing Freedmen Roll data prevented meaningful tribal search and enrollment consideration. | Choctaw responses discouraged further inquiry; information not required to prove membership criteria; tribe's determination controls. | Omissions were harmless; tribe's eligibility standards govern, and further notices would not alter outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (Cal. 2012) (ICWA policy favors keeping Indian children in Indian communities)
- In re Christian P., 208 Cal.App.4th 437 (Cal. App. 2012) (review of ICWA notice sufficiency for substantial evidence)
- In re Jeremiah G., 172 Cal.App.4th 1514 (Cal. App. 2009) (no ICWA notice required when prior Indian heritage claim is retracted)
- In re K.M., 172 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. App. 2009) (agency not required to cast about for information absent leads)
- In re J.M., 206 Cal.App.4th 375 (Cal. App. 2012) (not all genealogical data required for ICWA notices)
- In re Jack C., III, 192 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. App. 2011) (tribe's determination of eligibility is conclusive for ICWA purposes)