San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. K.B.
10 Cal. App. 5th 913
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2014 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed dependency petitions for two children, Jc.L. (age 4) and Ja.L. (age 1); the children were detained and removed from mother K.B.'s custody.
- At the October 21, 2014 detention hearing K.B. completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form marking "not sure" about having Indian ancestry; she could not identify a tribe or specific relatives with such ancestry.
- K.B.'s counsel informed the court that family members had "repeatedly" told K.B. she might have American Indian heritage but that K.B. had no additional specifics and would attempt to research more information.
- The juvenile court found at the detention and later hearings that ICWA did not apply and that reasonable inquiry had been made; the Agency did not send ICWA notices.
- The juvenile court terminated K.B.'s reunification services, selected adoption, and in July 2016 terminated K.B.'s parental rights; K.B. appealed arguing the Agency and court failed to satisfy ICWA's inquiry/notice duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency and juvenile court violated ICWA by failing to conduct further inquiry and provide notice when mother indicated possible Indian ancestry but offered no tribe or relatives | Agency/respondent: the mother's statements were vague, speculative family lore and did not give the court or social worker "reason to know" the children were Indian; no further inquiry or notice required | K.B./appellant: the mother's uncertainty and family statements created a duty to investigate further and contact extended family/tribes; the Agency improperly placed the burden on her to produce more information | Affirmed: the appellate court held the information was too vague to trigger the statutory duty of further inquiry/ICWA notice; the Agency and court did not err in declining to give notice at the section 366.26 hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (explains continuing duty to inquire about ICWA applicability)
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (discusses incorporation of ICWA into California law)
- In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (standard of independent review for undisputed ICWA facts)
- In re Hunter W., 200 Cal.App.4th 1454 (family lore too speculative to trigger ICWA inquiry)
- In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152 (vague assertions from relatives insufficient to require notice)
- In re Jeremiah G., 172 Cal.App.4th 1514 (possibility of Native ancestry without specifics does not trigger ICWA)
- In re J.D., 189 Cal.App.4th 118 (grandmother's vague statements were insufficient to require ICWA notice)
- In re Damian C., 178 Cal.App.4th 192 (distinguished: specific relative and tribe identified, triggering notice)
- In re Andrew S., 2 Cal.App.5th 536 (court directed remand for fuller inquiry where some indicia suggested ancestry; discussed agency duty to develop information)
- In re Shane G., 166 Cal.App.4th 1532 (agency duty to interview parents and extended family when reason to know exists)