In re D.S. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJP001180
- Trial judge
- William D. Quan
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights based on an implied finding that the Department had made a proper ICWA inquiry, despite the Department only inquiring of the mother and not other relatives. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order, finding the record lacked substantial evidence to support the implied finding of adequate inquiry, and remanded for the Department to comply with ICWA and section 224.2.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of parental rights based on implied finding of adequate ICWA inquiry“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s implied findings that the Department made a proper and adequate inquiry and ICWA did not apply, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Department to comply with ICWA and section 224.2.” | substantial evidence | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the substantial evidence standard to the implied finding of adequate inquiry. Under In re Dezi C., a court cannot rely on an implied finding of ICWA inapplicability if the record does not show the agency inquired of all persons with whom the child had contact, as required by section 224.2. The Department’s concession that it did not inquire of the father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, or other relatives established that the implied finding was unsupported by the record, necessitating conditional reversal. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — A conditional reversal is appropriate when the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's implied findings that the Department made a proper and adequate ICWA inquiry and that ICWA did not apply.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies that the Department's failure to inquire of all relevant relatives, as conceded by the Department, renders the juvenile court's implied finding of adequate inquiry unsupported by substantial evidence. The reliance on In re Dezi C. provides the correct legal framework for conditional reversal in this specific procedural context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to D.S. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after the Department inquired only of Mother about possible Indian ancestry despite having contact with the father, maternal relatives, the relative caregiver, and nonrelated extended family members. On appeal, with the Department conceding the inquiry error, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the termination order and remanded with directions for the Department to comply with ICWA and section 224.2, encouraging the parties to stipulate to immediate issuance of the remittitur.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Implied finding that the Department conducted a proper and adequate ICWA inquiry and that ICWA did not apply, underlying the order terminating parental rights“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s implied findings that the Department made a proper and adequate inquiry and ICWA did not apply, we conditionally reverse the order” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court Section 224.2, subdivision (b) requires the agency to ask extended family members and others with an interest in the child about possible Indian ancestry. The Department concededly had contact with the father, maternal grandmother, aunt, uncle, the relative caregiver, and nonrelated extended family members but asked only Mother. Under In re Dezi C., an inadequate initial inquiry is prejudicial and requires conditional reversal with a limited remand, which is exactly the remedy the court applied. The reasoning and remedy align with binding Supreme Court authority and the Department's concession. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — An inadequate initial ICWA inquiry under section 224.2 is prejudicial error requiring conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights and a limited remand for the agency to complete its inquiry.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the controlling Supreme Court decision in Dezi C. to a conceded failure to inquire of readily available extended family members and ordered the standard conditional reversal remedy. The opinion is a brief memorandum opinion that does not independently analyze the record or discuss the statutory text of section 224.2, but given the Department's concession the result is well supported.
Opinion
Filed 8/21/25 In re D.S. 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 D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085851 IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JJP001180)
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.N., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Quan, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Jacob I. Olson, 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. MEMORANDUM OPINION A.N. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights as to D.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) Her sole claim on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to ensure the Imperial County Department of Social Services (Department) complied with its inquiry duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and section 224.2. Specifically, Mother contends the Department had contact with D.S.’s father; maternal grandmother, aunt, and uncle; relative caregiver; and nonrelated extended family members, but it did not inquire of those relatives as to family heritage. The Department inquired only of Mother. Mother also asserts the juvenile court did not make an express finding regarding the applicability of ICWA in this case, and any implied finding of inapplicability is not supported by the evidence. The Department concedes it had contact with the named relatives, even if on a limited basis, but there is no record of it inquiring of these relatives regarding the respective family heritage. The Department further concedes this constitutes error warranting conditional reversal. Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s implied findings that the Department made a proper and adequate inquiry and ICWA did not apply, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Department to comply with ICWA and section 224.2. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1141.)
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights, entered on March 5, 2025, is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions that the Department comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of section 224.2. If the juvenile court thereafter finds a proper and adequate inquiry and due diligence has been conducted and concludes that ICWA does not apply, 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. Given the importance of expediency and need for finality, we encourage the parties to stipulate to immediate issuance of the remittitur. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.