In re C.B. CA2/4

Filed 3/13/26 In re C.B. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re C.B., a Person Coming B347067 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 23CCJP02504A

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.J.

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Juan M. Valles, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions. John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

M.J. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, C.B. Mother contends the juvenile court and respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (department) violated the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. The department concedes it did not adequately inquire of the child’s maternal uncle. We agree and conditionally reverse and remand.

DISCUSSION

ICWA and related California law (see In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 91) reflect a legislative determination to protect Indian children, tribes, and families (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1124–1125 (Dezi C.)). Juvenile courts and child welfare agencies “have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a).)1 Agencies must inquire “[a]t the first contact with the child and each family member, including extended family members” (id., subd. (b)(1)) such as aunts or uncles (§ 224.1, subd. (c)(1)). When an agency performs an inadequate inquiry, we must conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and direct “the agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1125; accord In re J.F. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 468, 471 [conditional reversal where parent and department agreed ICWA inquiry was inadequate].)