California Court of Appeal Mar 11, 2025 No. E084538Unpublished
Filed 3/11/25 In re Y.C. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re Y.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E084538
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J291050)
v. OPINION
D.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin,
Judge. Affirmed.
Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
The juvenile court terminated defendant and appellant D.C.’s (father) parental
rights as to Y.C. (minor, born September 2017). On appeal, father contends the court
committed reversible error in finding that plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino
County Children and Family Services (the department), complied with their duty of
inquiry with respect to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901
et seq.) and Welfare and Intuitions Code section 224.2, subdivision (a) (Cal-ICWA).1 We
Mother and minor’s youngest sibling (A.F.) tested positive for amphetamines at
the latter’s birth in October 2021.3 The maternal grandmother informed the social worker
that she had been awarded temporary custody of minor and another sibling (H.C.,
collectively “minors”)4 in August 2021, because mother did not have stable housing.
H.C. reported he lived with father.5 Father reported using illicit substances in the
past, but said that he had been clean for three years. He said he had last seen his children
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 On our own motion, we incorporated the record in case No. E083388, from father’s notice of intent to file a petition for extraordinary writ, with the record in this case.
3 Mother, A.F., and A.F.’s father are not parties to the appeal.
4 H.C. is not a party to the appeal.
5 Father is the father of both H.C. and minor.
2
in February or March 2021. The department had received “numerous” previous referrals
with respect to mother alleging drug use and domestic violence.
On October 22, 2021, the department placed minors into protective custody. On
October 26, 2021, the department filed a section 300 juvenile dependency petition
alleging that mother abused controlled substances (b-1), that mother had a history of
engaging in domestic violence (b-2), that mother failed to provide minor a safe living
environment (b-3), and that father left minor in the care of mother, who failed to protect
her (b-4).
At the detention hearing on October 27, 2021, mother’s counsel noted that, in
addition to mother’s presence in court, there were “two maternal relatives with her, the
maternal grandmother, . . . and I believe, the maternal great aunt.” Mother’s counsel
requested “that the maternal grandmother be checked out as a possible placement as
expediently as possible.”
Father had filed a Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020, on the same day
asserting, “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” The court confirmed that mother
had “submitted the parental notification of Indian ancestry stating you have no Indian
ancestry as far as you know.” The court likewise confirmed that father indicated that he
had no Indian ancestry.
The court asked the maternal grandmother whether she was aware of any Indian
ancestry in her family; the maternal grandmother responded that she was not aware of
any such ancestry. The court detained minors.
3
In the November 12, 2021, jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker
recommended the court find the allegations in the petition true, remove the children, and
grant parents reunification services. The social worker asserted that ICWA did not apply.
Father “identified the following individual as his safety network: girlfriend, [J.P.],
At the hearing on November 17, 2021, the court again conducted an ICWA inquiry
of the maternal grandmother, who answered, “There is none, no.” The court found the
allegations in the petition true and removed minors from parents.
Mother’s counsel noted, “I provided the court officer with relative information for
a maternal cousin who is seeking placement. There are other maternal relatives that
would like to be assessed. I advised my client to urge them to—to reach out to the social
worker and get that information to them as soon as possible.” The court granted parents
reunification services as to minors.
In the status review report filed on May 9, 2022, the social worker recommended
the court grant continued reunification services to parents. The social worker made
further ICWA inquiries of father, the parental uncle (C.O.), a maternal cousin (M.D.), and
a paternal uncle (M.C. Jr.), all of whom denied any Native American ancestry. Father
identified the following paternal relatives: a paternal uncle M.C. Jr., the paternal
grandfather, M.C. Sr., and the paternal grandmother A.C. Father requested the paternal
uncle M.C. Jr. and his wife E.C. be assessed for placement of minors. In the initial stages
4
of the assessment, E.C. indicated an adult in the home was on probation; therefore, the
social worker could not complete an assessment of the home for placement of minors.
At the hearing on May 17, 2022, the court noted that a maternal cousin M.D. was
present; the court asked M.D. if he had any Native American ancestry; M.D. responded
that he did not. The court also made ICWA inquiries of the maternal grandmother; she
responded that she had no Indian ancestry. The court then inquired of a maternal aunt
S.M. whether she had any Native American ancestry; she responded that she did not. The
court set the matter for a contested hearing.
At a hearing on June 22, 2022, the court again confirmed that the maternal aunt
S.M. and the maternal cousin M.D. had no Native American ancestry. The court
continued the contested review hearing.
In an additional information for the court filed July 5, 2022, the social worker
reported that she had contacted a maternal aunt R.P., who denied Native American
ancestry. At the hearing on July 6, 2022, the maternal grandmother appeared; the court
noted that she had “previously denied Native American Indian ancestry in the Family
Finding and ICWA inquiry.” The court also confirmed that the maternal aunt S.M. and
paternal aunt C.O., who were also present in court, had previously denied Indian heritage.
The court continued the matter for the contested hearing.
At the hearing on July 18, 2022, the court again confirmed that the maternal
grandmother, the maternal aunt S.M., and the paternal aunt C.O. had all previously
denied Native American ancestry. The court again continued the matter.
5
At the hearing on August 5, 2022, the court yet again confirmed that “the maternal
grandmother, maternal great-aunt [S.M.], and the paternal aunt [C.O.] were all questioned
and indicated there’s no Native American ancestry.”6 The court granted parents an
additional six months of reunification services for minors.
In the status review report filed November 7, 2022, the social worker
recommended the court terminate parents’ reunification services and set the section
366.26 hearing. The social worker provided of a graph of the previous inquiries of
mother, father, the maternal cousin M.T., and paternal uncle M.C. Jr. reflecting that they
had all denied any Indian ancestry. The social worker noted that the court had previously
found that ICWA did not apply.
The social worker further indicated, “On November 05, 2022, the undersigned left
a message for [father] inquiring if he had Native American Ancestry. On November 05,
2022, the undersigned spoke to maternal great aunt, [S.C.,][7] to attempt to inquire if
[mother] had Native American Ancestry. At the time of writing this report the
undersigned has not received a response. During the previous review period both [father]
and [mother] denied Native American Ancestry.” Both parents’ whereabouts were
unknown at the time of the report.
6 This was the first time anyone referred to S.M. as a maternal “great-aunt,” rather than simply a maternal “aunt.”
7 It is unclear from the record whether this was another maternal great-aunt, or whether the social worker incorrectly wrote the maternal great-aunt’s last name and that this was the same maternal great-aunt S.M. with whom the court had previously, repeatedly spoken.
6
On November 17, 2022, the court reaffirmed that the maternal grandmother and
maternal great-aunt had previously denied Indian ancestry. The court continued the
matter for a contested hearing.
At the hearing on December 8, 2022, the court, yet again, confirmed that the
maternal grandmother and maternal great-aunt had previously denied Native American
heritage. The court terminated parents’ reunification services as to minor, set a hearing
for ICWA review, and set the section 366.26 hearing.
In a January 19, 2023, additional information for the court, the social worker noted
that she had “conducted further Native American Ancestry inquiry. The undersigned
contacted maternal aunt [S.G.] and maternal grandmother [M.G.] to inquire about Native
American Ancestry.” They both denied any Indian ancestry. “On January 05, 2023[,]
and January 18, 2023, the undersigned called the number on file . . . for maternal aunt
[E.M.] and maternal uncle [J.M.]. The undersigned was unsuccessful in efforts to contact
[them], the undersigned left a voicemail each attempt and provided a call back number.”
“On January 03, 2023[,] and January 05, 2023, [t]he undersigned attempted to call
the number on file . . . for paternal grandmother [A.C.] and paternal grandfather [M.C.
Sr.;] the undersigned left a voicemail and provided a call back number.” The social
worker later spoke with the maternal uncle M.P. who denied any Indian ancestry.
At the ICWA review hearing on January 23, 2023, the department noted it had
“contacted all or nearly all of the relatives. The only people that I did not see that were
asked were [E.C.], and then Father’s significant other, [J.P.], and Father’s significant
7
other’s mother, [G.P.]. [¶] I’m not sure if the Court would like us to inquire of the
significant others or not. But I do think that [E.C.] is a relative and we’ll need to make
efforts to contact her.” The court asked, “the social worker to reach out to the father’s
significant other to see if she has any different information than the father.” The court set
the matter for further ICWA review.
On February 16, 2023, the department filed an additional information for the court
in which the social worker indicated she “attempted to contact, the father[’s] . . . past
significant other, . . . to make further inquiry regarding Native American Ancestry. The
undersigned was unsuccessful in contact[ing] [her;] the undersigned left a voicemail.”
The department “has no other number on file for [the former girlfriend.]” “On February
13, 2023, the undersigned called [father] and sent a text message asking for relative
[E.C.’s] contact information[;] at the time of writing this update the undersigned has not
received contact information for relative [E.C.].”
At the further ICWA inquiry hearing on February 23, 2023, the court noted, “The
social worker was unsuccessful in contacting [the former girlfriend]. The social worker
left . . . a voicemail on February 8th and February 13th, and there’s been no response.
The social worker also called [father] asking for [E.C.’s] contact information and [there]
has been no response, either, from [father].” The court found that the department had
complied with its ICWA duty of inquiry and that ICWA did not apply.
In the section 366.26 report filed April 4, 2023, the social worker requested an
additional 90 days to assess the prospective adoptive parents. The social worker provided
8
an updated graph of the previous inquiries of mother, father, the maternal cousin M.T.,
paternal uncle M.C. Jr., and paternal aunt C.O., reflecting that they had all denied any
Indian ancestry. The social worker noted that the court had previously found that ICWA
did not apply.
At the hearing on April 7, 2023, the court continued the section 366.26 hearing. In
a June 23, 2023, additional information for the court, the social worker requested to
change the recommendation for minors’ permanent plan from adoption to “a lesser plan”
“due to the extensive services needed to address” H.C.’s behaviors.
At the hearing on July 6, 2023, the court set the matter for a contested hearing on
the department’s recommendation to terminate parents’ visits as detrimental to minors’
best interest and change minors’ permanent plan. On July 28, 2023, the court again
continued the matter.
On August 30, 2023, the parties agreed to continued visitation between parents and
minors. The court ordered continued visitation.
The court noted, “We still need to address the issue of the recommendation that
changed for the previous [366].26 hearing. The recommendation is now for the Court to
set a post-permanent review hearing.” The court found the previously recommended plan
of adoption no longer appropriate. The court adopted the department’s recommendation
that the permanent plan be changed to placement in foster care.
In the February 21, 2024, status review report, the social worker changed the
recommendation solely as to minor; the social worker now, again, recommended the
9
court set a section 366.26 hearing as to minor with adoption as the permanent plan. At
the hearing on March 1, 2024, the court set the section 366.26 hearing as to minor.
Father filed a notice of intent to file a petition for extraordinary writ. On April 3,
2024, this court dismissed the case pursuant to father’s counsel’s letter reflecting that
there were no legal or factual issues upon which to base a petition for extraordinary writ.
In the June 26, 2024, section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended
parents’ parental rights to minor be terminated. The social worker noted that the
department “has had limited contact with the parents during this review period and ha[s]
not had the opportunity to make further ICWA inquiry. Previously, the parents denied
Native American Ancestry.”
At the section 366.26 hearing on July 1, 2024, the court noted that it had
“previously found that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply.” The court found
minor adoptable and terminated parents’ parental rights to minor.
II. DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court failed to ensure the department complied with
ICWA and Cal-ICWA. Specifically, father maintains that the department failed to make
sufficient inquiries of the paternal grandfather M.C. Sr., the paternal grandmother A.C.,
and the paternal uncle M.C. Jr.’s wife, E.C. We disagree.
“In 1978, Congress enacted the [ICWA] to ‘formalize[] federal policy relating to
the placement of Indian children outside the family home.’ [Citation.] Under ICWA’s
state analogue, the California Indian Child Welfare Act (Cal-ICWA; [citation]), courts
10
and child welfare agencies are charged with ‘an affirmative and continuing duty to
inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child’ in dependency cases. [Citation.]
Child welfare agencies discharge this state law duty by ‘asking the child, parents, legal
guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the
child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an
Indian child and where the child, the parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled.’
[Citation.]” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1124-1125 (Dezi C.), fn. omitted;
accord In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1099.)
“Agencies and juvenile courts have ‘an affirmative and continuing duty’ in every
dependency proceeding to determine whether ICWA applies by inquiring whether a child
is or may be an Indian child. [Citation.]” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1131-1332.)
“[T]he duty to inquire ‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal
guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the
child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an
Indian child.’ [Citation.] ‘[E]xtended family member’ means ‘a person who has reached
the age of eighteen and who is the Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or
sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or
stepparent.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1132, fn. omitted; see In re Kenneth D., supra, 16
Cal.5th at p. 1099, fn. 5.)
“The juvenile court’s factual finding that ICWA does not apply is ‘subject to
reversal based on sufficiency of the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at
11
p. 1134; accord In re Kenneth D., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1101.) “[T]he juvenile court’s
fact-specific determination that an inquiry is adequate, proper, and duly diligent is ‘a
quintessentially discretionary function’ [citation] subject to a deferential standard of
review. [Citations.] ‘“On a well-developed record, the court has relatively broad
discretion to determine whether the agency’s inquiry was proper, adequate, and duly
diligent on the specific facts of the case. However, the less developed the record, the
more limited that discretion necessarily becomes.”’ [Citations.]” (Dezi C., at p. 1141;
accord In re Kenneth D., at pp. 1101-1102.)
Reversal is not required where “every possible extended family member has not
been asked about the child’s Indian ancestry.” The department is not required “‘to ‘find’
unknown relatives and others who have an interest in the child, merely to make
reasonable inquiries.’ The operative concept is those people who are reasonably available
to help the agency with its investigation.’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1140; accord
In re Kenneth D., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1094.)
Here, both the department and the court conducted extensive inquiries of extended
family members, all of whom repeatedly denied having any Native American ancestry.
Substantial evidence supported the court’s determination that ICWA did not apply.
The court ensured that both parents had filed ICWA forms; in both forms, parents
denied Indican ancestry. Both parents denied any Native American ancestry when asked
directly by the court. The social worker made repeated further ICWA inquiries of
12
parents, in response to which parents either denied Indian ancestry or failed to respond
altogether.
The social worker made ICWA inquiries of a paternal uncle C.O., a maternal
cousin M.D., another paternal uncle M.C. Jr., a maternal aunt R.P., another maternal aunt
S.G., a maternal uncle M.P., and the maternal grandmother, all of whom denied Native
American ancestry. The social worker made unsuccessful attempts to contact yet another
maternal aunt E.M., another maternal uncle J.M., and father’s “past significant other,” all
of whom failed to respond to voicemails. The social worker provided the court with
graphs reflecting all the ICWA inquiries it had conducted.
The maternal grandmother repeatedly denied any Indian ancestry when asked by
the court. The court twice inquired of the maternal great-aunt S.M. whether she had any
Native American ancestry; she responded both times that she did not. The court twice
inquired whether the maternal cousin M.D. had any Native American ancestry; M.D.
twice responded that he did not. While they were present in court, the court repeatedly
confirmed that the maternal grandmother, the maternal great-aunt S.M., and the paternal
aunt C.O. had previously denied Indian heritage.
Most pertinent here, “On January 03, 2023[,] and January 05, 2023, [t]he [social
worker] attempted to call the number on file . . . for paternal grandmother [A.C.] and
paternal grandfather [M.C. Sr.;] the undersigned left a voicemail and provided a call back
number.”
13
At the time of her inquiry, the social worker had no current contact information for
E.C., the wife of paternal uncle M.C. Jr. She called and texted father to obtain contact
information for E.C., but father failed to respond. Thus, with no reason to know or
believe that minor was an Indian child, the court found that ICWA did not apply.
We see nothing in the law to require the department to make repeated or
exhaustive attempts to inquire of extended family members who have not participated in
the proceedings. This is particularly true where, as here, none of the relatives of whom
father complains the department failed to sufficiently inquire were “reasonably
available.” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1140; see In re Kenneth D., supra,16 Cal.5th
at p. 1094.) Moreover, there is no reason here to know, let alone reason to believe, that
minor was an Indian child because repeated inquiries of numerous extended family
members all reflected no Indian ancestry.
On this record, the social worker’s two calls to the paternal grandmother and
paternal grandfather were “proper, adequate, and duly diligent.” (Dezi C., supra, 16
Cal.5th at p. 1141; accord In re Kenneth D., supra,16 Cal.5th at pp. 1101-1102.)
Likewise, the social worker’s unreturned inquiries of father for contact information for
E.C. were sufficient to satisfy the department’s duty of inquiry. The social worker had
previously inquired of M.C. Jr., E.C.’s husband, who was the actual blood relative of
minor; M.C. Jr. denied any Indian ancestry. The court acted within its “relatively broad
discretion” in determining that ICWA did not apply.
14
III. DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
RAPHAEL J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the department and juvenile court satisfied their duty of inquiry under ICWA and Cal-ICWA, as the record demonstrated that the department made reasonable, diligent efforts to contact extended family members and that substantial evidence supported the finding that ICWA did not apply.
Issues
Did the department and juvenile court fulfill their duty of inquiry under ICWA and Cal-ICWA?
Was there substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that ICWA does not apply?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Substantial evidence supported the court’s determination that ICWA did not apply.”
“We see nothing in the law to require the department to make repeated or exhaustive attempts to inquire of extended family members who have not participated in the proceedings.”
“The court acted within its “relatively broad discretion” in determining that ICWA did not apply.”