San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. T.C. (In re A.F.)
18 Cal. App. 5th 833
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Infant A.F., enrolled member of the Campo Band of Mission Indians, was removed from her father’s care after a homicide investigation of another child in the same household; juvenile court found ICWA applied.
- A.F. was initially placed with a maternal cousin (Liesha D.) on the Tribe’s reservation; the Tribe and its social worker recommended continuing that placement.
- The paternal grandmother, Donna, sought placement and later filed motions and declarations asserting she was an appropriate relative placement; the Agency evaluated and approved visitation and later overnight visits for Donna.
- The juvenile court bifurcated jurisdiction and disposition, found A.F. a dependent under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(f), and after hearing evidence placed A.F. with Donna.
- Mother (T.C.) appealed, arguing the court failed to apply ICWA’s placement preference statute (§361.31) and federal ICWA (25 U.S.C. §1915) correctly and failed to make a required “good cause” finding to deviate from the Tribe’s stated placement preference for Liesha.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had to follow a Tribe’s case-specific letter as a tribal “resolution” changing ICWA’s default placement order and therefore make a §361.31 good-cause finding to deviate | T.C.: Tribe’s March 29 letter preferring Liesha established a Tribe preference requiring good cause to deviate | Agency: A tribal letter in a particular case is not a binding tribal “resolution” establishing a different objective order; §1915(c)/§361.31(d) require a resolution or equivalent | Court: The Tribe’s letter did not constitute a binding resolution changing the default order; no good-cause finding required because paternal grandmother and cousin are coequal under ICWA preferences; placement with Donna complied with ICWA |
| Whether state statute §361.3 (relative-preference rules) overrides or alters ICWA placement preferences for Indian children | T.C.: Implicit argument that §361.3 preferences (e.g., grandparents) should control or require particular weighing | Agency: ICWA (§361.31/25 U.S.C. §1915) controls; §361.3 does not override ICWA; even if §361.3 applied, court found Donna preferable | Court: §361.31 governs Indian children; no need to resolve any conflict; placement with Donna permissible and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony T. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.4th 1019 (clarifies ICWA placement preferences and construction in California)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (ICWA legislative purpose to protect tribal interests and Indian children)
- In re Isabella G., 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (describes §361.3 relative-placement procedure and standing issues)
- In re Liliana S., 115 Cal.App.4th 585 (rejects tribal resolution that designates a specific individual as altering ICWA’s order)
- In re Jullian B., 82 Cal.App.4th 1337 (similar rejection of tribal attempt to designate one extended family member over another)