In re D.W. CA1/2

Filed 1/21/26 In re D.W. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re D.W, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, A173474 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County Super. Ct. v. No. JD-036063-01) D.W., Defendant and Appellant.

D.W. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services in May 2025 following a contested 18-month status hearing regarding the dependency of his son, D.W. (Minor). Father’s only claim on appeal is that the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to meet its duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law, and the Agency concedes this error. We will vacate any juvenile court findings of ICWA compliance, remand to allow the Agency to comply with ICWA and

1

related California law, and otherwise affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders.1 DISCUSSION “ICWA establishes minimum standards for state courts to follow before removing Indian children from their families and placing them in foster care or adoptive homes and does not prohibit states from establishing higher standards.” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1129 (Dezi C.); see 25 U.S.C. § 1921.) “Under ICWA’s state analogue [(Cal-ICWA)] . . ., courts 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.’ ” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1125, quoting § 224.2, subds. (a) and (b), italics added.) “The juvenile court is required to make findings as to the applicability of the ICWA.” (H.A. v. Superior Court (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 956, 965.) “It should undertake a meaningful ICWA analysis on the record, not simply