San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Sally H. (In re E.H.)
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- E.H., removed from Mother in Feb 2016; dependency adjudication and later termination of parental rights in Feb 2018. Mother appealed solely on ICWA notice/inquiry grounds.
- Mother and maternal great-grandmother (Sally Y.H.) reported paternal-side Papago/Tohono O'odham heritage to the Agency; the Agency had contact with Sally Y.H.
- The Agency sent an ICWA notice to the Tohono O'odham Nation that listed several relatives (including a "Bruno Y.") but did not identify Sally Y.H.'s father or explicitly list a great-great-grandparent for E.H.; it also contained typographical/address errors.
- The Tohono O'odham Nation replied it had no record of E.H. or her parents as members and would reassess if provided additional information.
- The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply; appellate court concluded the Agency failed adequately to inquire about and notify the tribe regarding all known direct lineal ancestors (specifically Sally Y.H.'s father) and reversed limitedly for additional ICWA notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency had duty to inquire of maternal great-grandmother about her father's identifying information | Mother: Agency had duty because Sally Y.H. reported paternal Tohono O'odham heritage | Agency: Likely it already obtained info (Bruno Y.) and any omissions were typographical or harmless | Held: Duty to inquire was triggered; Agency failed to show it obtained or properly recorded Sally Y.H.'s father's identity |
| Whether Agency had duty to include great-great-grandparent/direct lineal ancestors in ICWA notice | Mother: Direct lineal ancestor info (including great‑great‑grandparents) must be provided if relevant | Agency: Federal/state law did not require listing relatives more remote than great‑grandparents | Held: Agency must provide as much known information on direct lineal ancestors (including great‑great‑grandparents) when relevant |
| Whether the Agency's sending of the notice listing Bruno Y. cured inquiry/notice obligations | Mother: Listing Bruno with wrong relationship undermined tribe's review | Agency: Bruno likely is the father and relationship error was typographical; tribe's response shows no prejudice | Held: Record does not show Bruno is Sally Y.H.'s father; misdescription and omission were not proven harmless |
| Whether any ICWA notice/inquiry errors were harmless such that termination can stand | Mother: Errors could be prejudicial because they may have influenced tribal determination | Agency: Tribe's letter shows E.H. not a member and tribe didn't request more info, so errors harmless | Held: Errors not shown harmless; remand required for proper notice and inquiry before reinstating termination if tribe confirms non‑Indian status |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (explains ICWA notice purposes and standards)
- In re Abbigail A., 1 Cal.5th 83 (contexts ICWA's protections and federal standards)
- In re A.F., 18 Cal.App.5th 833 (discusses BIA/regulatory guidance applicability)
- In re J.L., 10 Cal.App.5th 913 (California statutory incorporation of ICWA requirements)
- In re C.B., 190 Cal.App.4th 102 (requires notice including direct lineal ancestor information where relevant)
- In re S.E., 217 Cal.App.4th 610 (reversible error for omitting great‑great‑grandparent info relevant to tribal identity)
- In re J.M., 206 Cal.App.4th 375 (held ancestors more remote than great‑grandparents not required — court here disagreed with that view)
- In re Breanna S., 8 Cal.App.5th 636 (standard for prejudice and emphasis on strict ICWA compliance)
- In re E.R., 18 Cal.App.5th 891 (addresses temporal application of 2016 ICWA regulations)
Disposition: Judgment terminating parental rights reversed limitedly; remanded for the juvenile court to direct the Agency to provide accurate, complete ICWA notice (including all known direct lineal ancestors) to the Tohono O'odham Nation. If the tribe confirms E.H. is not an Indian child, the termination judgment will be reinstated.