San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. J.C.
192 Cal. App. 4th 967
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- J.C. and Anna C. have four children; three siblings Elizabeth (16), Andrew (15), Jack (4) were subject to dependency proceedings; Jack had prior separate proceedings and was placed with maternal grandparents.
- The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa (Band) intervened after notice indicated the children were eligible for enrollment; the Band sought transfer of jurisdiction under ICWA and state law.
- The trial court denied transfer to the Band, concluding the children were not Indian children and that there was not good cause to transfer, and it later terminated parental rights for Jack.
- Band and tribal representatives argued the proceedings should proceed under ICWA with tribal jurisdiction; the court deferred to later Band status and enrollment issues.
- The appellate court allowed augmentation of the record showing later enrollment of Elizabeth, Andrew, and Jack in the Band, and determined the children were Indian children under ICWA’s broad definitions.
- The court reversed the transfer denials and remanded with directions to transfer to the Band, subject to the Band’s right of declination; in Elizabeth and Andrew’s cases, a transfer-hearing decision was to be made if good cause existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children are Indian children under ICWA despite lack of enrollment | J.C. and family contend not Indian children since not enrolled. | Agency argues federal definition governs; enrollment not strictly required; status can be established by eligibility. | Children are Indian children under ICWA. |
| Whether the court erred in denying transfer for lack of good cause under § 305.5 | Petition timely; reunification status not proper good cause to deny. | Court properly denied due to advanced stage and other factors. | Trial court erred; denial of transfer was not supported by good cause. |
| Timeliness of the transfer petition under § 305.5(c)(2)(B) and notice requirements | Notice under § 224.2 complied; petition timely after Band notice. | Delay weighed against transfer due to proceedings already underway. | Transfer petition timely filed; termination timing not equal to denial reason. |
| Whether inadequate hearing occurred in Elizabeth and Andrew cases on transfer | Rule 5.483(d)(3) requires a hearing if good cause exists. | Transfer decision for siblings was not fully heard; agency notes addressed Jack's case. | Hearing required if good cause exists; remand to hold transfer hearing if applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (tribal jurisdiction preferred in ICWA custody cases)
- In re M.M., 154 Cal.App.4th 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (tribal jurisdiction preference; ICWA framework in CA)
- In re Kahlen W., 233 Cal.App.3d 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (CA ICWA reorganizations and protections)
- In re Damian C., 178 Cal.App.4th 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (broader CA protections and ICWA alignment)
- In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (higher protections under CA law harmonized with ICWA)
- In re A.B., 2003 ND 98 (N.D. 2003) (tribal membership determinations and ICWA applicability)
- In re Francisco W., 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (limited reversal consistent with ICWA disposition goals)
- U.S. v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1979) (enrollment not always absolute requirement for ICWA jurisdiction)