ICWA

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry issue is cognizable on appeal where juvenile court retains jurisdiction over the child but made no ICWA findings at the hearing from which Mother appeals. Minor was removed from her parents. When the recommendation for Minor’s permanent plan changed from guardianship to adoption, Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting reinstatement of services. The juvenile court summarily denied the petition. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. The published portion of the appeal addresses ICWA applicability in these circumstances. The juvenile court had jurisdiction over Minor when it heard Mother’s 388 petition. Despite there…

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry was sufficient where the Agency contacted relatives but they refused to cooperate. The case was initially remanded for additional ICWA inquiry following Mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights. After remand, the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and reinstated the termination. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. The Agency contacted both the maternal grandmother and maternal great grandmother to inquire regarding ICWA ancestry. Both were uncooperative. The Agency was not required to try and change their minds. Thus, the Agency took reasonable steps to determine if the minors were…

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry was sufficient despite failure to interview maternal grandmother. Following the detention of the minor K.L, the Agency inquired about Indian ancestry with the parents and all available family members except the maternal grandmother. The Agency did not have contact information for the maternal grandmother, but she was involved in the lives of K.L.’s half siblings and other relatives. Father challenged the ICWA inquiry in his appeal from the termination of his parental rights and the reviewing court affirmed. The Agency has an obligation to contact extended family members who are reasonably available, but is…

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry was sufficient despite failure to interview paternal grandfather. Following the detention of Minors, the Agency inquired with the parents and numerous family members regarding ICWA. On appeal from the termination of parental rights, the parents argued that the Agency had spoken with paternal grandfather regarding other matters, but had neglected to ask him about ICWA, and therefore the inquiry was insufficient. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The juvenile court’s ICWA finding is a discretionary finding subject to a deferential standard of review. The record has sufficient evidence to support the juvenile…

The Agency must seek to inquire regarding potential Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ancestry with all reasonably available extended family members. Minors were removed and parental rights were terminated. During the pendency of the case, the Agency interviewed the parents and three extended family members regarding Indian ancestry, but failed to interview other reasonably available extended family members. Mother appealed and the reviewing court conditionally reversed with directions to comply with ICWA inquiry provisions. Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b) requires the Agency to inquire with extended family members when a child is in the temporary custody of…

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry was sufficient despite the Agency failing to interview reasonably available extended relatives. Minor was removed and parental rights were terminated after reunification was unsuccessful. The Agency had inquired of numerous maternal and paternal relatives regarding ICWA. On an appeal from the termination, the parents identified four extended family members who were reasonably available but who the Agency had not attempted to speak with regarding ICWA. The reviewing court rejected the argument, declining to follow In re Claudia R. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 76. It affirmed, finding that the investigation was reasonably thorough despite the Agency…

Sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply where Agency inquired of maternal grandmother, but not maternal uncle. Minors were removed due to domestic violence and other issues. Mother, Father, and the maternal grandmother denied Indian ancestry. The Agency additionally inquired with paternal relatives, who all denied Indian ancestry. Mother and Father appealed the termination of their parental rights and the reviewing court affirmed. Despite the Agency not inquiring with maternal uncle about ICWA when the Agency spoke with him regarding another matter, there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile…

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) initial inquiry requirements are required for all minors, regardless of how they were brought into the system. Minors were removed by way of a section 340 warrant before AB 81 took effect. On appeal, Mother argued that the Agency had not complied with the ICWA initial inquiry requirements. The Court of Appeal found that the ICWA initial inquiry requirements were not applicable because the minors were removed pursuant to a warrant. The California Supreme Court (CSC) granted review and reversed. The passage of AB 81 resolved the conflict of whether the extended-family initial inquiry duty…

Agency did not need to duplicate efforts to inquire with Minor’s maternal family regarding heritage for the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) where the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply in Mother’s case a year earlier. Mother became a dependent of the juvenile court in 2020. Mother and maternal grandmother denied Indian ancestry and the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply. Less than a year later, Mother’s child, C.R., was removed from Mother, who continued to deny any Indian ancestry. Father also denied Indian ancestry. Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, raising ICWA initial inquiry compliance…