In re M.L. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J520709
- Trial judge
- Lilys D. McCoy
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Truc T. Do
Analysis
The juvenile 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, accepting the agency's concession that the ICWA inquiry was inadequate, and remanded for the agency to conduct further inquiry.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order terminating parental rights under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding (made without prejudice) that ICWA did not apply in this case, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and section 224.2.” | substantial evidence | error | agree with court The appellate court found that the juvenile court's finding that ICWA did not apply was not supported by substantial evidence because the agency failed to inquire of multiple relatives as required by ICWA and Section 224.2. The court relied on the agency's concession that the inquiry was inadequate and applied the rule from In re Dezi C. that inadequate ICWA inquiry requires conditional reversal to allow the agency to cure the error. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — If ICWA inquiry is inadequate, conditional reversal is required so the agency can cure the error and thereby safeguard the rights of tribes, parents, and the child.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the established legal standard from In re Dezi C. that inadequate ICWA inquiry necessitates conditional reversal. The court's reliance on the agency's explicit concession regarding the failure to inquire of specific relatives provides a sufficient factual basis for the reversal without needing to analyze the underlying evidence further.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to M.L. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after finding, without prejudice, that ICWA did not apply. On appeal the Agency conceded its initial ICWA inquiry was inadequate as to several reasonably available maternal and paternal relatives, and the Court of Appeal accepted the concession, conditionally reversed the termination order, and remanded with directions to complete ICWA and section 224.2 inquiry and notice.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's finding (made without prejudice) that ICWA did not apply, premised on an adequate Agency inquiry under section 224.2“Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding (made without prejudice) that ICWA did not apply in this case, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights” | substantial evidence | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court Section 224.2, subdivision (b) imposes a duty to ask extended family members about possible Indian ancestry. The Agency conceded it never asked the maternal grandmother, a maternal uncle, both paternal grandparents, and a paternal aunt, all of whom were reasonably available, so the record could not support a finding that an adequate inquiry had been made. Under In re Dezi C., an inadequate initial inquiry requires conditional reversal so the agency can cure the defect; the court applied that rule correctly. |
Order terminating parental rights under section 366.26“The juvenile court’s August 25 order is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions that the Agency comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA and section 224.2.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Mother raised no challenge to the merits of termination; the only claim was ICWA inquiry. The court did not review the termination findings themselves and instead ordered a conditional reversal with reinstatement if ICWA is found inapplicable after proper inquiry, which is the remedy prescribed by Dezi C. The disposition is appropriate given the limited issue raised. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 — Where the agency's ICWA inquiry under section 224.2 is inadequate, the error is prejudicial and conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights is required so the agency can cure the error and safeguard the rights of tribes, parents, and the child.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Dezi C.'s rule that an inadequate initial ICWA inquiry compels conditional reversal, and the Agency's concession that reasonably available extended family members were never asked leaves no room for a contrary result. The only gap is clerical: the body describes the order as dated August 28, 2025, while the disposition refers to the 'August 25 order,' which the court should have reconciled, though it does not affect the outcome.
Opinion
Filed 2/17/26 In re M.L. 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 M.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086977 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J520709)
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.R., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lilys D. McCoy, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Kristen M. OJeil, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION K.R. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights as to M.L. (DOB January 2021) (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26). Her sole claim on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to ensure the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) complied with its inquiry duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and section 224.2. Specifically, Mother contends that, although the Agency inquired if she and the presumed father had Native American Indian ancestry (which they both denied), the Agency failed as part of its ongoing obligation to inquire about the Indian ancestry for “multiple maternal and paternal relatives.” She further contends the Agency’s lack of compliance with ICWA and state law requires that we (conditionally) reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for additional ICWA inquiry efforts. The Agency concedes: (1) the record does not contain sufficient evidence of an adequate ICWA inquiry as to the maternal grandmother, a maternal uncle, the paternal grandmother and grandfather, and a paternal aunt;2 (2) all of these individuals were “reasonably available to the Agency” for such inquiry; and (3) the record therefore does not contain sufficient evidence of an adequate initial ICWA inquiry, warranting a conditional 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 The Agency acknowledges that it also did not inquire whether a paternal great-aunt and great-uncle had Indian ancestry, noting they may qualify as persons who have an interest in M.L. under section 224.2, subdivision (b)(2) (which includes, “but is not limited to,” inquiring of extended family members and “others who have an interest in the child”).
2 reversal of the juvenile court’s August 28, 2025 order terminating parental rights.3 We accept the Agency’s concessions. Because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding (made without prejudice) that ICWA did not apply in this case, we conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and section 224.2. (See In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1141 [if ICWA “inquiry is inadequate, conditional reversal is required so the agency can cure the error and thereby safeguard the rights of tribes, parents, and the child”].) DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s August 25 order is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions that the Agency comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA and 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, however, the court concludes ICWA applies, then it shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and California implementing provisions.
3 The Agency submits Mother and the presumed father are entitled to appointment of counsel on remand. 3 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1), the parties have stipulated to the issuance of an immediate remittitur in this case. The clerk is directed to issue the remittitur immediately.
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4