Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In September 2024, V.P. filed an adoption request for his stepson L.V., attaching the child's mother's statement that she had asked her own mother about the child's Indian ancestry and received no reason to believe the child was or might be an Indian child, along with a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020) stating that none of the enumerated bases for Indian status applied. In June 2025, V.P. petitioned to declare L.V. free from parental custody, and the biological father, J.V., objected to termination of his parental rights.
The Alameda County Social Services Agency filed two reports in August. The first contained no ICWA information, though it noted J.V. wanted his son to know his paternal grandfather and cousins; there is no indication any of them were contacted. The second stated the petitioner had submitted ICWA forms and that it did not appear ICWA applied. At a January 2026 contested hearing, J.V. testified he had not seen L.V. in several years. After evidence closed, J.V.'s counsel argued the ICWA inquiry was insufficient. At the court's direction, counsel questioned J.V. under oath; he testified he was not a tribal member, did not know if he was eligible for membership, and had never lived on a reservation, rancheria, or Alaskan native village. The court stated it was finding ICWA complied with, concluded J.V. had abandoned his son (Fam. Code, § 7822, subd. (a)(3)) and that termination was in L.V.'s best interests, and granted the petition, though the formal order made no express ICWA findings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed with J.V. that the ICWA inquiry was insufficient because no paternal relatives other than J.V. himself were questioned. State law codifies and expands ICWA's duty of inquiry, imposing an affirmative and continuing obligation on courts and social services agencies to ask whether a child is or may be an Indian child. That duty extends to extended family members — grandparents, aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and adult first or second cousins — and applies in petitions to free a minor from parental custody under Family Code section 7822.
Remand is compelled even though nothing in the record indicates any reason to believe ICWA applies and all available evidence is to the contrary. Citing Adoption of M.R. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 537, 541, the court held that a limited remand is required where no inquiry of extended family members was made. On remand, the Agency need only reach out to people reasonably available to help with the investigation; it need not hound relatives who promise contact information but do not supply it, stalk uncooperative relatives, or cast about for unproductive leads. Questioning L.V.'s older half sibling is not required because the sibling is a minor and shares L.V.'s maternal relatives while having a different father.
The court conditionally reversed the order freeing L.V. from parental control and custody and remanded for compliance with ICWA's inquiry provisions. If the trial court thereafter finds a proper and adequate further inquiry and due diligence were conducted and concludes ICWA does not apply, it shall reinstate the order; if it concludes ICWA applies, it shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and state implementing provisions.
Key Takeaways
- ICWA imposes an affirmative and continuing duty on courts and social services agencies to inquire whether a child is or may be an Indian child, and that duty extends to extended family members including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult cousins.
- A trial court's failure to inquire of extended paternal family members about possible Indian ancestry requires conditional reversal and remand, even when there is no evidence suggesting the child has Indian ancestry.
- On remand, agencies need only reach out to people reasonably available to help with the investigation and are not required to pursue unproductive leads or repeatedly contact uncooperative relatives.
- The ICWA duty of inquiry applies in proceedings to free a minor from parental custody under Family Code section 7822, not just in dependency cases.
- Courts must presume that a parent raising an ICWA objection is not engaging in gamesmanship to delay resolution of the case or the minor's permanency.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict requirements of ICWA's inquiry provisions: trial courts cannot rely solely on a parent's own testimony or on forms submitted by the petitioner when extended family members have not been contacted. The duty of inquiry is affirmative and continuing, and failure to satisfy it requires remand even absent affirmative evidence of Indian ancestry.
The ruling also gives social services agencies practical guidance on remand, clarifying that they need only contact reasonably available relatives and need not pursue futile efforts. By conditionally reversing rather than outright reversing, the court allowed the trial court to reinstate the termination order if a proper inquiry confirms ICWA does not apply.