Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Kristina C.
3 Cal. App. 5th 225
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Children Alissa (5) and K.C. (2) were declared dependents after mother Kristina and K.C. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth; reunification services were provided then terminated and a §366.26 (termination/adoption) hearing was set.
- At the December 11, 2013 detention hearing Kristina filed an ICWA-020 stating she “may have Indian ancestry through [her] mother (MGM)” and told the court a prior social worker had said her mother was “full-blood Indian” from two tribes.
- The juvenile court ordered the Department to investigate; the Department reinterviewed Kristina and searched records but did not locate or interview the maternal grandmother, siblings, or other maternal relatives despite Kristina saying her mother might live in San Diego and she had siblings.
- The court twice (Dec. 11, 2013 and Feb. 28, 2014) found ICWA did not apply; the court later terminated parental rights on Sept. 29, 2015 without further ICWA inquiry at that hearing.
- On appeal Kristina argued the Department failed to satisfy its affirmative duty to inquire and provide ICWA notice based on her statement implicating maternal Indian ancestry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA inquiry/notice was adequate | Kristina: her statement that her mother was Indian triggered further inquiry and notice; Dept failed to investigate maternal line | Dept: Kristina’s vague, uncorroborated recollection was insufficient to require BIA/tribal notice; earlier ICWA findings stand | Court: Dept failed to adequately investigate; remand for further inquiry and notice as required by ICWA/Cal. law |
| Whether appellate court can review ICWA claim despite no timely appeal from earlier ICWA rulings | Kristina: may challenge implied ICWA finding underlying the termination order | Dept: lack of jurisdiction because earlier ICWA rulings not appealed | Court: follows In re Isaiah W.; parent may challenge implied ICWA finding in appeal from termination order |
| Scope of agency duty when a person suggests tribal ancestry | Kristina: Department must interview parents/extended family and locate maternal relatives identified | Dept: minimal record search was sufficient without contacting extended maternal relatives | Court: statutory affirmative and continuing duty requires meaningful efforts to contact relatives and investigate as soon as practicable |
| Remedy for ICWA noncompliance discovered on appeal | Kristina: reversal and new §366.26 | Dept: preserve termination because earlier findings and lack of corroboration | Court: conditional affirmance; remand for investigation/notice; if tribe(s) identified or BIA notice yields tribal response, conduct new §366.26 and further proceedings in compliance with ICWA |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (California Supreme Court) (court has continuing duty to inquire about ICWA; parent may raise ICWA challenge in appeal from termination order)
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (California Supreme Court) (overview of ICWA purposes and state obligations)
- In re Kadence P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1376 (discusses that only tribes determine membership and no remoteness/blood-quantum exception to ICWA notice)
- In re Alice M., 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (agency’s duty to inquire is triggered by a lower standard than formal tribal notice)
- In re Hunter W., 200 Cal.App.4th 1454 (family lore alone, without corroboration or investigative follow-up, may be insufficient to trigger BIA notice)
- In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152 (grandparent’s bare statement that child “may have Indian in him” insufficient by itself)
- In re Asia L., 107 Cal.App.4th 498 (ICWA applicability findings may be express or implied)