California Court of Appeal Oct 28, 2025 No. E086197Unpublished
Filed 10/28/25 In re E.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E086197
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIJ2100411)
v. OPINION
M.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun,
Judge. Affirmed.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath Shettigar,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In this dependency case concerning Minor (Minor), the juvenile court terminated
the parental rights of his mother, defendant and appellant M.P. (Mother), and his alleged
into whether Minor may have Indian ancestry. Specifically, Mother asserts the inquiry
was insufficient because the Department did not question Minor’s maternal
grandparents, paternal grandfather, and paternal aunt. We affirm.
FACTS
A. HALF-SIBLINGS
Mother gave birth to two children who are older than Minor—V.P. and S.C
(Siblings). Siblings do not have the same father as Minor. The three children’s
maternal grandmother is an alcoholic. Mother abuses methamphetamine.
Siblings’ dependency case began in 2021. As to Siblings, the juvenile court
found that the Indian Children Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) did not apply. Mother did
not participate in her reunification services pertaining to Siblings and therefore did not
reunify with Siblings.
1 All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
B. DETENTION
Mother gave birth to Minor in October 2023. The Department was immediately
involved with Minor due to Mother’s ongoing dependency case with Siblings. On
October 11, 2023, when speaking with the Department social worker at the hospital,
Mother denied having Indian ancestry and declined to provide Minor’s maternal
grandparents’ contact information. On October 26, 2023, a Department social worker
asked Mother “for any possible family members to consider for placement. [Mother]
abruptly ended the call by hanging up.” The Department detained Minor upon his
discharge from the hospital.
Father did not sign Minor’s birth certificate because Father “was not present at
the time of signing.” Father did not attend the detention hearing. The juvenile court
identified Father as Minor’s alleged father and denied him reunification services.
C. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION
Father did not attend the January 2024 jurisdiction hearing. At the hearing, the
juvenile court found ICWA did not apply. The juvenile court again identified Father as
Minor’s alleged father and denied him reunification services.
D. SIX-MONTH REVIEW
In April 2024, Father denied having Indian ancestry. In July 2024, at the six-
month review hearing, the juvenile court found the Department conducted an adequate
ICWA inquiry and Minor is not an Indian child. The juvenile court terminated
Mother’s reunification services.
3
E. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
In January 2025, a Department social worker again asked Mother about any
Indian ancestry she may have. Mother again denied having Indian ancestry. The social
worker tried telephoning Father to again inquire about any Indian ancestry, but Father’s
telephone number was not in service. The social worker spoke with Minor’s paternal
grandmother who denied having Indian ancestry. The paternal grandmother said that
she and Minor’s paternal grandfather “are of Mexican descent.” The paternal
grandmother also informed the social worker that Father was in prison. The social
worker mailed Father a letter, in prison, inquiring about any Indian ancestry. There is
no indication that Father responded to the letter. The juvenile court terminated
Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Minor. When terminating Father’s parental
rights, the juvenile court again identified Father as Minor’s alleged father.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding the ICWA inquiry was
sufficient because the Department did not question Minor’s maternal grandparents,
paternal grandfather, and paternal aunt about possible Indian ancestry.
We apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (In re K.H. (2022) 84
Cal.App.5th 566, 589; see also In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1101-1102.)
“The juvenile court may find that ICWA does not apply to a proceeding if it determines
‘that proper and adequate further inquiry and due diligence as required . . . have been
conducted and there is no reason to know whether the child is an Indian child.’ ” (K.H.,
at p. 589.) When a county places a child in foster care, the county “has a duty to inquire
4
whether that child is an Indian child. Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking the
child, parents, . . . [and] extended family members, . . . whether the child is, or may be,
an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b)(2).)
Under ICWA, “ ‘parent’ means any biological parent or parents of an Indian
child . . . who has lawfully adopted an Indian child . . . . It does not include the unwed
father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” (25 U.S.C.
§ 1903(9).) “A man who may be the father of a child but has not established his
biological paternity, or achieved presumed father status, is an alleged father.” (In re
H.R. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1283.) Thus, ICWA does not apply to alleged
fathers because they have not established biological paternity. (In re E.G. (2009) 170
Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) Because Father is an alleged father, ICWA does not apply to
him or his relatives, as there is no evidence of them having a biological or adoptive
connection to Minor. Consequently, there was no requirement that the Department
inquire of Father or his relatives regarding Indian ancestry.
Father contends, “Father is a person who has an interest in [Minor], was
reasonably available to help the Department with its investigation into whether [Minor]
had any potential Indian ancestry, and thus, he should have been asked about Native
American ancestry.” In April 2024, Father denied having Indian ancestry. In January
2025, a Department social worker tried telephoning Father to again inquire about any
Indian ancestry, but Father’s telephone number was not in service. The social worker
spoke with Minor’s paternal grandmother who denied having Indian ancestry. The
paternal grandmother also informed the social worker that Father was in prison. The
5
social worker mailed Father a letter, in prison, inquiring about any Indian ancestry. The
foregoing facts reflect the Department asked Father and the paternal grandmother about
any possible Native American ancestry.
Next, we address the failure to inquire of Minor’s maternal grandparents. The
definition of “extended family members” includes grandparents. (§ 224.1, subd. (c)(1).)
The duty to inquire of extended family members does not “obligate county welfare
departments to search for possible Indian ancestry without regard to cost or other
practical considerations. Rather, it . . . ensure[s] social workers ‘ask an added question
of extended family members whom [they] often already are investigating in their usual
course of work.’ ” (In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 711, 720.)
“ ‘Where . . . a parent largely fails . . . to provide names and contact information
for extended family members, [the Department’s] ability to conduct an exhaustive
ICWA inquiry necessarily is constrained.’ [Citation.] ‘[W]e cannot ask the
[Department] to intuit the names of unidentified family members or to interview
individuals for whom no contact information has been provided.’ [Citation.] Requiring
the Department to track down information about extended family members beyond that
offered by participants in the proceedings would impose an undue burden on the
Department and necessarily reduce the resources it has to otherwise protect the welfare
of dependent children.” (In re H.B., supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 720.)
6
The record reflects that an inconclusive allegation of neglect was made involving
Minor’s older half-sibling, V.P., in September 2020. The relevant part of the allegation
was as follows: “The mother was reportedly using methamphetamines and the maternal
grandmother was an alcoholic. . . . The grandmother would drink beer sometimes but
denied doing so while caring for the child.”
There is nothing in the record indicating the Department had the information it
needed to contact maternal grandparents during Minor’s case, i.e., in 2023, 2024, or
2025, such that it could have asked the maternal grandparents about possible Indian
ancestry. On October 11, 2023, Mother declined to give the Department the maternal
grandparents’ contact information. On October 26, 2023, Mother hung up on the social
worker who asked about possible family members for placement of Minor. Thus, the
Department tried to gather maternal grandparents’ contact information, but Mother did
not cooperate with the Department’s efforts.
The record reflects the Department social workers inquired of the relatives with
whom they came in contact—Mother, Father, and paternal grandmother. The
Department made efforts to gather more contact information for other relatives, but they
were blocked by Mother. We conclude the Department’s efforts support the juvenile
court’s finding that the Department conducted an adequate inquiry into whether Minor
is an Indian child.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the Department conducted an adequate ICWA inquiry because it questioned available relatives and was not required to contact maternal grandparents whose information the mother refused to provide, nor was it required to inquire of the alleged father's relatives.
Issues
Whether the Department's ICWA inquiry was sufficient despite not questioning the maternal grandparents, paternal grandfather, and paternal aunt.
Whether the Department is required to inquire of an alleged father's relatives regarding Indian ancestry.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Father is an alleged father, ICWA does not apply to him or his relatives, as there is no evidence of them having a biological or adoptive connection to Minor.”
“The Department’s efforts support the juvenile court’s finding that the Department conducted an adequate inquiry into whether Minor is an Indian child.”