In re A.G. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. EJ4749A-C
- Trial judge
- Gary M. Bubis
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights, finding that ICWA did not apply based on the Agency's inquiry. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order, finding the record lacked substantial evidence to support the finding of proper and adequate inquiry, and remanded for the Agency to complete and document further inquiry.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of parental rights order (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that ICWA did not apply and its implied finding that proper and adequate inquiry had been made, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and the inquiry requirements of section 224.2, document its inquiry in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5), and if necessary, comply with the notice provision of section 224.3.” | substantial evidence | error | agree with court The appellate court found that the Agency's failure to document its inquiry to 45 tribes meant the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that ICWA did not apply. This is a correct application of the standard of review for dependency termination orders, which requires the findings to be supported by substantial evidence. The court correctly identified that the Agency's concession of error and the lack of documentation in the record necessitated a conditional reversal to allow for proper compliance with ICWA and Section 224.2. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — Establishes the standard for conditional reversal and remand when ICWA inquiry requirements are not met, specifically referencing the need to document inquiry and comply with notice provisions.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the substantial evidence standard to the ICWA inquiry findings and relies on the recent California Supreme Court decision in In re Dezi C. to support the conditional reversal and remand procedure. The reasoning directly addresses the Agency's concession of error and the lack of documentation in the record, which are the central issues on appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after finding ICWA did not apply, and impliedly finding that a proper and adequate inquiry had been made. On appeal, the Agency conceded its further-inquiry efforts with some 45 tribes were not adequately documented, and the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded with directions to complete and document the ICWA inquiry under section 224.2 and rule 5.481(a)(5).
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that ICWA did not apply and implied finding that a proper and adequate further inquiry had been conducted under section 224.2, supporting the order terminating parental rights“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that ICWA did not apply and its implied finding that proper and adequate inquiry had been made, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court Paternal relatives reported a possible Blackfoot connection, triggering the duty of further inquiry; the Agency sent letters to dozens of tribes but the record documented only one response, and the Agency itself conceded the record was insufficient. Under In re Dezi C., an inadequate or undocumented inquiry means the ICWA finding lacks substantial evidence and conditional reversal with a limited remand is the appropriate remedy, so the court's conclusion follows from the governing authority. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — An inadequate ICWA inquiry under section 224.2 undermines the juvenile court's finding that ICWA does not apply, and the remedy is conditional reversal with a limited remand to complete and document the inquiry.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the substantial-evidence standard to the juvenile court's ICWA finding and follows the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dezi C. in ordering conditional reversal where the further inquiry is undocumented. Given the Agency's concession, the short memorandum format is appropriate, though the opinion does not independently describe the record of inquiry or the specific documentation gaps.
Opinion
Filed 10/31/24 In re A.G. CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re A.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084442 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. EJ4749A-C) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.H., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I.H. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)2 Her sole contention on appeal is the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and section 224.2. Mother contends the Agency’s duty of further inquiry was triggered when paternal relatives reported the family had connections with the Blackfoot tribe in Oklahoma. Because there is no Blackfoot or Blackfeet tribe in Oklahoma, the Agency sent inquiry letters to at least 45 tribes that might be implicated. The Agency concedes that the record does not contain sufficient documentation of its further inquiry efforts with those tribes, and that this constitutes error warranting conditional reversal. Indeed, based on the record, it appears only one tribe responded, stating the children were not members of that tribe. Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that ICWA did not apply and its implied finding that proper and adequate inquiry had been made, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and the inquiry requirements of section 224.2, document its inquiry in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5), and if necessary, comply with the notice provision of section 224.3. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1141.)
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “raise[s] no substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of sections 224.2 and 224.3 and the documentation provisions of California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5). If the juvenile court thereafter finds a proper and adequate further inquiry and due diligence has been conducted and concludes ICWA does not apply (§ 224.2, subd. (i)(2)), then the court shall reinstate the order terminating parental rights. If the juvenile court concludes ICWA applies, then it shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and California implementing provisions. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); §§ 224.2, subd. (i)(1), 224.3, 224.4.) Remittitur shall issue immediately.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
CASTILLO, J.