In Re KM

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 2009 No. B206435Published

Before: Perren

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Agency fulfilled its duty to provide meaningful notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by attempting to gather information from the family, and it was not required to conduct further inquiry based on mere supposition when the family refused to cooperate.

Issues

Did the Agency fail to comply with ICWA notice requirements by not interviewing the child's great-grandmother?
Is the Agency required to conduct further inquiry into Indian ancestry when the family refuses to provide information and there is no evidence of tribal affiliation?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Agency did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court.”

“ICWA does not require further inquiry based on mere supposition.”

172 Cal.App.4th 115 (2009) In re K.M., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

C.M., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B206435. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.

March 16, 2009. As modified March 26, 2009. [117] Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Noel A. Klebaum, County Counsel, and Linda L. Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

PERREN, J.

C.M. appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and finding her child adoptable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends the juvenile court erred in giving the notices required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent Ventura County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of two-year-old K.M. on November 14, 2006. The petition alleged the mother, C.M., did not properly supervise or care for the child. C.M. had untreated mental and emotional problems and was incarcerated for child endangerment. The child's father is unknown.

C.M. indicated on an Indian ancestry questionnaire that she was, or might be, a member of the "Cherakia" tribe. Based on this information, the Agency gave notice of the December 7, 2006, jurisdiction and disposition hearing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The notices contained only the names and addresses of C.M. and presumed father. The Eastern Band and United Keetoowah Band sent replies that K.M. was not a member of that tribe.

In a memorandum dated December 3, 2007, the social worker explained that she had asked C.M. several times for further information regarding her

In Re KM

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

AI Brief