The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court erred in finding the agency conducted a proper, adequate, and duly diligent inquiry into whether the children are or may be Indian children, in compliance with California law. The court further found that the error was prejudicial, which necessitated a conditional reversal of the court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply and a limited remand so that an inquiry that comports with Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), may be conducted. The court rejected the agency’s contention that the broad duty of inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (b), does not apply in cases where, as here, children are taken into protective custody by warrant under section 340, subdivision (a) or (b).