In re A.C. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. NJ520415B
- Trial judge
- Alejandro Morales
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights, finding that ICWA did not apply based on an inquiry limited to the father and one uncle. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order, accepting the Agency's concession that the inquiry was inadequate, and remanded for compliance with ICWA inquiry and notice requirements.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, predicated on the finding that ICWA did not apply.“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 accept the Agency’s concession.” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — The initial duty of inquiry under ICWA and section 224.2 continues throughout dependency proceedings and requires asking extended family members if the child is or may be an Indian child.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the standard of review for factual findings (substantial evidence) and relies on the controlling Supreme Court precedent (In re Dezi C.) to determine that the Agency's limited inquiry was insufficient. The disposition is appropriate as it conditionally reverses to allow for the necessary procedural compliance without requiring a full retrial if ICWA is ultimately found not to apply.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after finding that ICWA did not apply. On appeal, the Agency conceded it had not adequately inquired of paternal extended family members about possible Indian ancestry, and the Court of Appeal accepted the concession, conditionally reversed the termination order, and remanded for compliance with ICWA and section 224.2.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's finding that ICWA did not apply and implied finding that a proper and adequate initial inquiry had been conducted under section 224.2“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 accept the Agency’s concession.” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court Under Dezi C., the duty of initial inquiry extends to extended family members, and the opinion recounts that the Agency asked only Father and one paternal uncle despite a large paternal family, including relatives it had mailed placement letters to. Dezi C. also holds that an inadequate initial inquiry is prejudicial and requires conditional reversal with a limited remand, which is exactly what the court ordered, and the Agency conceded the error. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — The ICWA initial inquiry duty continues throughout dependency proceedings and requires asking extended family members whether the child is or may be an Indian child; an inadequate inquiry is prejudicial and requires conditional reversal of the termination order with a limited remand for compliance.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Dezi C., the controlling Supreme Court authority, to an undisputed record showing the Agency asked only Father and one uncle despite known additional paternal relatives, and it adopts the conditional reversal remedy Dezi C. mandates. It is a brief memorandum opinion resting on a concession, but no argument or authority appears to have been skipped given the narrow issue.
Opinion
Filed 8/11/25 In re A.C. 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.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085878 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ520415B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Caitlin E. Howard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. David J. Smith, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION J.C. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) His sole contention on appeal is that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its initial inquiry duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and its California counterpart (§ 224.2). The initial duty of inquiry, which “ ‘continues throughout the dependency proceedings,’ ” requires the juvenile court and the Agency to ask extended family members, among others, “ ‘whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.’ ” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1132 (Dezi C.).) In this case, on the paternal side, the Agency asked Father and a single paternal uncle, T.C., whether they had any Indian ancestry, but there is no evidence it attempted to make any ICWA inquires of other relatives from Father’s large family, including those to whom it mailed placement letters and Father’s siblings. As a result, Father contends the Agency did not satisfy its duty to adequately inquire as to the potential Native American ancestry of paternal relatives. The Agency does not disagree. Rather, it concedes that the record contains insufficient evidence that it conducted the necessary inquiry with the paternal relatives and that this constitutes error warranting conditional reversal. 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 accept the Agency’s concession. We conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and section 224.2. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1137, 1141.) 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 section 224.2. If the juvenile court thereafter finds a proper and adequate inquiry has been conducted and concludes that 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); Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 224.2, subd. (i)(1), 224.3, 224.4.)
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
RUBIN, J.