Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
D.C. (Father) and B.M. (Mother) traveled from Florida to San Bernardino with their two young children in December 2024. Days after arriving, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) received a referral reporting that Father had forced Mother to smoke methamphetamine and sexually assaulted her, that Mother believed Father had sexually assaulted their daughter, and that the children were dirty with matted hair. CFS took the children into protective custody on December 20, 2024, and filed dependency petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on December 24, 2024.
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing was continued twice to address Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act issues. On April 9, 2025, the children were declared dependents and removed from both parents; the juvenile court found the children may come under ICWA and ordered CFS to continue its duty of inquiry. On March 18, 2026, the court terminated both parents' reunification services but set no section 366.26 hearing because the children were not proper subjects for adoption and no legal guardian had been identified.
Both parents and extended family members were asked about Native American ancestry. Mother initially denied knowledge but later filed an ICWA-020 form stating she might be eligible for membership in the Colorado River Indian tribes, noting she had lived on a reservation in Parker, Arizona. Father denied knowledge of ancestry, mentioned his mother died in Big River, California, which he called tribal-owned, and filed an ICWA-020 form stating no categories applied. Two maternal aunts also denied any Native American ancestry.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that Father's ICWA claim was not ripe. Whether the ICWA inquiry has been satisfied is not a justiciable controversy until the juvenile court makes a final ruling on ICWA's applicability. The only ICWA finding here was the April 9, 2025 order that ICWA may apply and that CFS must continue its inquiry; no superseding findings were made, including at the March 18, 2026 hearing terminating reunification services.
Father argued the termination order impliedly found the inquiry sufficient, citing In re Michael V. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 225. The court distinguished Michael V.: there the juvenile court had previously found the ICWA investigation complete and ICWA inapplicable, and that finding was implicit in the later termination of parental rights. Here the only existing ICWA order directed continued inquiry, so no prior ruling existed upon which a negative ICWA finding could impliedly rest.
The court likewise distinguished Father's other authorities, each involving either termination of parental rights or an express finding that ICWA did not apply. Because Father's parental rights had not been terminated, no section 366.26 hearing had been set, and the dependency case remained ongoing, any perceived inquiry deficiencies could still be resolved in the normal course. The court affirmed without reaching the adequacy of CFS's inquiry, while encouraging CFS to ensure full compliance with its duty.
Key Takeaways
- An ICWA inquiry challenge is not ripe until the juvenile court makes a final ruling on whether ICWA applies.
- An order that ICWA may apply and that the agency must continue its inquiry is not a final, appealable ICWA ruling.
- An implied finding that ICWA does not apply requires a prior express ICWA ruling, such as one later incorporated into a termination order.
- Terminating reunification services, without more, creates no final ICWA ruling where no section 366.26 hearing is set and the case is ongoing.
- The court encouraged CFS to fully comply with its continuing duty of inquiry even while affirming on ripeness grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces ripeness as a procedural barrier to ICWA challenges raised before the juvenile court has made a final determination of ICWA's applicability. It clarifies that an order finding ICWA may apply and directing continued inquiry is fundamentally different from an order finding ICWA does not apply; only the latter creates a justiciable controversy.
The ruling also limits implied ICWA findings: In re Michael V.'s reasoning cannot extend to cases where the juvenile court never made a negative ICWA finding. Parents and counsel should raise ICWA challenges only after the juvenile court has conclusively ruled on ICWA's applicability.