In re S.M. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJP001004JJP001005
- Trial judge
- William D. Quan
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Truc T. Do, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied the mother's section 388 modification petitions and terminated her parental rights under section 366.26. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed these orders and remanded the case for the Department to complete its deficient initial ICWA inquiry duties.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petitions and termination of parental rights under section 366.26“Because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s findings that reasonable inquiry had been made into the children’s possible Indian ancestry, we conditionally reverse the orders denying Mother’s section 388 petitions and the orders terminating parental rights” | substantial evidence | error | agree with court The appellate court found that the Department failed to ask extended family members about Indian ancestry, which is required by statute and case law. Because this initial inquiry was deficient, the court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the trial court's findings, necessitating a conditional reversal and remand to complete the inquiry. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542 — The point of asking other relevant individuals about possible Indian ancestry is to obtain information the parent may not have.
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — When ICWA inquiry is deficient, the appropriate remedy is a conditional reversal and remand for the agency to comply with its duties of inquiry.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the standard of review for dependency findings and relies on the controlling Supreme Court authority (In re Dezi C.) for the remedy of conditional reversal when ICWA inquiry is deficient. The reasoning directly addresses the sole contention raised by the appellant regarding the Department's failure to inquire of extended family.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County juvenile court denied Mother's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions and terminated her parental rights to S.M. and L.M. under section 366.26, implicitly finding that reasonable ICWA inquiry had been made. On appeal, the parties agreed the Department failed to ask known extended family members about Indian ancestry, and the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded with directions to complete ICWA and section 224.2 inquiry, with the orders to be reinstated if no reason to know of Indian status emerges.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's finding that reasonable ICWA/section 224.2 initial inquiry had been made (ICWA inapplicable)“Because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s findings that reasonable inquiry had been made into the children’s possible Indian ancestry, we conditionally reverse the orders denying Mother’s section 388 petitions and the orders terminating parental rights” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court Section 224.2(b) requires the agency to ask extended family members about possible Indian ancestry; the Department had multiple contacts with a maternal aunt, great-uncle and cousins and never asked. The Department conceded the deficiency, and In re Dezi C. holds such an inadequate inquiry requires conditional reversal and remand, so the court's conclusion follows directly from the controlling statute and Supreme Court authority. |
Denial of Mother's section 388 modification petitions and termination of parental rights under section 366.26“Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Imperial County Department of Social Services (Department) did not comply with its initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and section 224.2.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Mother raised no substantive challenge to the section 388 denials or the termination findings; the court did not review their merits and conditionally reversed them solely as the remedy for the ICWA inquiry error, directing reinstatement if no reason to know of Indian status is found. That remedy is the one prescribed by Dezi C. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — An inadequate initial ICWA inquiry under section 224.2 requires conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights and a limited remand for the agency to complete its inquiry, with reinstatement if no reason to know of Indian status results.
- relied: In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542 — The purpose of asking extended family members and other relevant individuals about possible Indian ancestry is to obtain information the parent may not have, so failure to ask available relatives renders the inquiry deficient.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the controlling Supreme Court decision in Dezi C. and section 224.2(b) to a conceded failure to ask known extended family members about Indian ancestry, and orders the remedy Dezi C. prescribes. Because the error was stipulated and the law is settled, the brief memorandum disposition answers the only issue raised with the correct authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 4/29/25 In re S.M. 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 S.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085279 IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JJP001004 & Plaintiff and Respondent, JJP001005)
v. A.T., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Quan, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Eric R. Havens, County Counsel, Mistelle Abdelmagied, Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly Ranasinghe, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A.T. (Mother) appeals from orders issued on December 9, 2024 in the juvenile dependency cases of her children, S.M. and L.M., denying her Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 388 modification petitions and terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Imperial County Department of Social Services (Department) did not comply with its initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and section 224.2. The parties agree that the Department’s initial ICWA inquiry was deficient because the Department failed to ask extended family members, including a maternal aunt, a maternal great-uncle, and maternal cousins, about the possibility of the children’s Indian ancestry even though it had multiple contacts with them. (§ 224.2, subd. (b); In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 556 [The point of asking other relevant individuals about possible Indian ancestry is “to obtain information the parent may not have.”].) The parties further agree that the orders should be conditionally reversed and the matter remanded for the Department to comply with its duties of inquiry. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1136–1137.) Because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s findings that reasonable inquiry had been made into the children’s possible Indian ancestry, we conditionally reverse the orders denying Mother’s section 388 petitions and the orders terminating parental rights with a 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(1).)
2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 limited remand for the Department to comply with its duties of inquiry under ICWA and section 224.2. (In re Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1136–1137.) DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s orders issued on December 9, 2024 denying Mother’s section 388 petitions and terminating parental rights are conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions that the Department comply with the inquiry provisions of ICWA and section 224.2. If, after completing ICWA inquiry, neither the Department nor the juvenile court has reason to know that S.M. or L.M. is an Indian child, the orders entered at the section 366.26 hearing shall be immediately reinstated. If the Agency or juvenile court has reason to know that one or both are Indian children, the court shall proceed accordingly.
DATO, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, J.
KELETY, J.