In re Matthew D. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. EJ3449
- Trial judge
- Gary M. Bubis
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith D. McConnell
Analysis
The trial court terminated John H.'s parental rights after finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply, despite the Agency sending incomplete ICWA notices that omitted known information about the child's tribal affiliation and family history. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case with directions to provide proper ICWA notice, noting that the Agency conceded the notices were insufficient.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of parental rights based on a finding that ICWA did not apply“The judgment terminating parental rights is reversed. The case is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order Agency to provide proper ICWA notice and file all required documentation with the juvenile court.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court determined that the trial court's finding that ICWA did not apply was erroneous because the Agency failed to provide the required, complete notice to the tribes. The court relied on the Agency's concession that the notices were insufficient and the specific omissions of known information regarding the father's tribal membership and family history. By reversing and remanding for proper notice, the court effectively held that the termination judgment could not stand without first ensuring compliance with ICWA procedural requirements. |
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it relies on the Agency's concession of error regarding ICWA notice and the clear statutory mandate for such notice. However, it is brief and does not explicitly cite specific case law interpreting the scope of 'reason to know' or the specific content requirements of ICWA notices, relying instead on the factual record of omissions.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply after the Agency sent ICWA notices that omitted known information (the family-wide roll number, relationship of the relative listed, Indian health clinic treatment, and the father's Chumash association), and in May 2013 it terminated John H.'s parental rights to Matthew D. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal the Agency conceded the notices were insufficient, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to give proper ICWA notice, to proceed under ICWA if a tribe claims Matthew is an Indian child, and otherwise to reinstate the termination judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's finding that ICWA did not apply, based on ICWA notices that omitted known required information (roll number shared by the family, the relative's relationship to the child, Indian health clinic treatment, and the father's Chumash association), followed by termination of parental rights.“The Agency concedes the ICWA notices were insufficient and a limited remand is necessary to effect and document proper ICWA notice.” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court ICWA and its California implementing provisions require that notice to tribes include all known identifying information about the child's Indian ancestors, including tribal enrollment numbers and the relationship of listed relatives to the child. The opinion recites that the father reported tribal membership with a roll number, that the sister supplied the roll number shared by the whole family, and that most notices omitted or misattributed this information, so the notices were deficient and the court's ICWA finding could not stand. The Agency's concession and the conditional-reversal remedy (notice, then reinstatement if no tribe responds affirmatively) are consistent with the usual approach to ICWA notice error. |
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct and consistent with the settled rule that ICWA notice must include all known information about the child's possible tribal affiliation, and the conditional reversal with directions is the standard remedy; the Agency's concession made extended analysis unnecessary. The opinion nonetheless cites no case law or specific statutory provision (such as Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2) defining the required contents of ICWA notice or supporting the limited-remand disposition, and does not state a standard of review.
Opinion
Filed 9/24/13 In re Matthew D. 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 MATTHEW D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D064027 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ3449) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN H., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M.
Bubis, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Clare M. Lemon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Caitlin E. Rae, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. John H. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, Matthew D. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) John contends the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) omitted known and required information from notices given pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), and the juvenile court failed to require sufficient ICWA notice. The Agency concedes the ICWA notices were insufficient and a limited remand is necessary to effect and document proper ICWA notice.
In August 2011, at the outset of this case, John told the social worker that he was "a member of the Mission Digueno Tribe[,] a band of the Kumeyaay Indians," and had a roll number. John also said that he had "Native American Ancestry with the Chumash Tribe in the Santa Ynez reservation . . . ." In his Parentage Inquiry, he declared he had "Chumash and Digueno" heritage. In his Parental Notification of Indian Status, he declared he might have Indian ancestry through a Kumeyaay Tribe and a "Mission Digueno / Chumash" band. In September, John's sister gave the social worker the roll number shared by all family members.
The social worker sent incomplete ICWA notices to the tribes. Most of the notices listed the roll number only in connection with a relative, did not explain how that relative was related to Matthew and did not explain that the whole family shared the roll number.
Most of the notices omitted known information that John and other paternal relatives had received medical and dental treatment at an Indian health clinic. Most of the notices listed a Chumash Tribe association only for the paternal great-grandmother.
2 None of the responses to the ICWA notices were positive. The court found that ICWA did not apply. In May 2013, the court terminated parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The judgment terminating parental rights is reversed. The case is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order Agency to provide proper ICWA notice and file all required documentation with the juvenile court. If, after proper notice, a tribe claims Matthew is an Indian child, the juvenile court shall proceed in conformity with ICWA.
If, on the other hand, no tribe makes such a claim, the court shall reinstate its judgment terminating parental rights.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
MCDONALD, J.