Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. Joseph A., 1 Cal. 5th 83

DHHS filed dependency petitions for Abbigail and Justin; father Joseph alleged Cherokee ancestry and intended to seek tribal membership for the children.
Cherokee Nation responded that the children were eligible for membership by lineage but not members and that tribal enrollment (by parent or child) would be required for tribal intervention.
Juvenile court, citing California Rule of Court 5.482(c), proceeded “as if” the children were Indian children and ordered DHHS to make active efforts to secure tribal membership; it applied ICWA procedures at disposition.
DHHS appealed, arguing rule 5.482(c) and related rule 5.484(c)(2) were invalid as inconsistent with state law; Court of Appeal held both rules invalid and reversed the juvenile court’s ICWA-directed orders.
California Supreme Court granted review to decide the validity of the two Judicial Council rules in light of ICWA and California statutes that incorporated ICWA definitions and requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rule 5.482(c) validly requires courts to "proceed as if" a child is an Indian child and to pursue tribal membership when a tribe says the child is eligible but not a member	Rule is a permissible, protective procedure to avoid future delay and to apply higher state protections	Rule conflicts with state statutes that incorporate ICWA’s federal definition of "Indian child" and exceeds Judicial Council rulemaking authority	Rule 5.482(c) is invalid as inconsistent with state law and legislative intent
Whether rule 5.484(c)(2) is valid in requiring active efforts (including pursuing tribal membership) when placing/terminating rights of an Indian child	DHHS challenged rule as invalid (Court of Appeal)	Rule merely applies ICWA obligations when the child actually qualifies as an Indian child and assists access to tribal services	Rule 5.484(c)(2) is valid as applied to children who meet ICWA’s definition of "Indian child"

In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (2012) (Judicial Council rules cannot extend ICWA beyond the Legislature’s incorporation of federal definitions)
In re Alonzo J., 58 Cal.4th 924 (2014) (rule is inconsistent with statute if it conflicts with language or legislative intent)
In re Richard S., 54 Cal.3d 857 (1991) (limits on Judicial Council rulemaking authority)
People v. Hall, 8 Cal.4th 950 (1994) (rules cannot conflict with governing statutes)
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (background on Congress’ purposes in enacting ICWA)