Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In October 2023, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services received a referral alleging general neglect of K.C.'s six children. A second referral in December 2023 added a seventh child and reported drug use and partying. On February 1, 2024, a social worker took the minors into protective custody, placing them with maternal relatives. Both parents reported no Indian ancestry.
The department filed a section 300 dependency petition on February 5, 2024, alleging neglect of the minors' health, safety, medical, and educational needs and the mother's unresolved substance abuse. At the February 6, 2024 detention hearing, the court detained the minors and, after inquiring of C.C., who denied such heritage, found ICWA did not apply at that time. On April 8, 2024, the court found the petition allegations true, removed the minors from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for the mother.
Throughout 2024 and 2025, social workers repeatedly asked the mother, the minors, and maternal relatives about Native American ancestry, and all denied it. In the July 16, 2025 status review report, the maternal grandmother reported a family story that her great-grandmother had been part of a tribe in Los Angeles before leaving for Mexico around the time of the Mexican-American War, though she did not know the tribe's name. At the September 11, 2025 hearing, the court found the children not Native Indian children and the inquiry sufficient, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. On January 14, 2026, the court found A.C.1 and L.C. adoptable and terminated the mother's parental rights as to them; on March 23, 2026, it found E.C., A.C.2, and A.C.3 adoptable, terminated her parental rights as to them, and found ICWA does not apply.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the department failed to comply with its affirmative and continuing duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act and Cal-ICWA. That duty requires agencies to ask the child, parents, extended family members, and others with an interest in the child whether the child is or may be an Indian child. Agencies need not locate unknown relatives, but must make reasonable inquiries of those reasonably available.
The maternal grandmother's report of possible ancestry tied to a specific geographic area—a tribe in Los Angeles—triggered a duty of further inquiry. Where an extended relative identifies a specific geographic area with a finite number of federally recognized tribes, it is not futile to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the tribes themselves. The department should have, at minimum, contacted the BIA and the Department of Social Services Office of Tribal Affairs, and should have followed up with the readily available maternal aunt C.C. and uncle and inquired of maternal aunt D.C., whom the department had contacted on October 23, 2023 but never asked about ICWA.
Because the department conceded it did not adequately follow up on the grandmother's report, the court conditionally reversed the orders terminating the mother's parental rights and remanded for full compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and related California law. If, after proper notice, the juvenile court finds the minors are not Indian children and ICWA does not apply, the termination orders shall be reinstated.
Key Takeaways
- Child welfare agencies have an affirmative and continuing duty under ICWA and Cal-ICWA to inquire whether a child in dependency proceedings is or may be an Indian child.
- When an extended family member reports possible Native American ancestry tied to a specific geographic area, the agency must contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the tribes in that area.
- Agencies must make reasonable inquiries of all reasonably available extended family members, including contacted relatives never questioned about ancestry.
- A department's concession that it failed to adequately follow up on a possible-ancestry report supports conditional reversal of termination orders.
- On remand, the termination orders are reinstated only if proper ICWA notice and inquiry establish that the minors are not Indian children.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the California Supreme Court's guidance in In re Dezi C. that the ICWA duty of inquiry is affirmative and continuing: even an uncertain family story identifying a specific geographic area of possible ancestry is a lead the agency must pursue through the BIA or area tribes, not dismiss as futile.
The ruling also underscores that agencies must question all reasonably available extended family members, and that conditional reversal preserves the possibility of permanency for the children while ensuring compliance with federal and state law protecting Indian children, families, and tribes.