In re R.S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082347 · 2023-10-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from orders
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County
Trial judge: Mark T. Cumba
Outcome: reversed in part — Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Area: dependency
Panel: Truc T. Do (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:26Z · confidence high

The trial court found that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to the child, relying on an initial inquiry that the appellate court found incomplete. The Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders but reversed the ICWA finding and remanded the case to the Riverside County juvenile court to complete the required inquiries.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that ICWA did not apply “we reverse the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remand for compliance with ICWA”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court determined the Agency failed to satisfy its affirmative duty under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 by not inquiring of specific extended family members and a nonrelative extended family member with an interest in the child. The court relied on the Agency's own concession that these individuals were 'additional inquiry leads' and that the NREFM had an interest in the child, concluding the initial inquiry was insufficient to support the finding that ICWA did not apply.

Authorities

relied: In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192 — Supports the procedural posture of affirming jurisdictional and dispositional orders while reversing a specific ICWA finding and remanding for compliance.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the statutory duty of inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 and relies on the Agency's concession that specific individuals were not asked. It reaches a defensible result by distinguishing the completed inquiry of the half-sibling from the uncompleted inquiries of other extended family members and the NREFM.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The San Diego County juvenile court made jurisdictional and dispositional orders over R.S. and found that ICWA did not apply, even though the Agency had not asked the paternal aunt, two paternal uncles, or the nonrelative extended family member caregiver about possible Native American ancestry. The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum opinion accepting the Agency's concession, reversed the ICWA finding, otherwise affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and remanded to the Riverside County juvenile court (to which the case had been transferred) with directions to comply with ICWA and section 224.2 inquiry and notice requirements.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Juvenile court finding that ICWA does not apply, made before the Agency completed its initial inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (b) of the paternal aunt, two paternal uncles, and the NREFM caregiver “Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remand for compliance with ICWA.”	unclear	error (law misapplied)	agree with court Section 224.2, subdivision (b) requires the Agency to ask extended family members (which under 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2) includes aunts and uncles) and others with an interest in the child about possible Native American ancestry. The Agency conceded it had not asked the aunt, uncles, or the NREFM caregiver and conceded the caregiver has an interest in the child. On that record the ICWA finding was premature, and the limited remand is the standard remedy. The court did not state a standard of review or address prejudice, but the concession made that unnecessary.
Jurisdictional and dispositional orders over the Child “Because Mother and Father do not contest the jurisdiction and disposition orders on any other grounds, we otherwise affirm these orders.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The parents raised only the ICWA inquiry issue, so there was no basis to disturb the merits of jurisdiction and disposition. Affirming those orders while remanding for limited ICWA compliance is consistent with In re Damian C., which the court cited.
Juvenile court's questioning of the Child's adult half-sibling at the first detention hearing regarding Native American relatives or tribal connections “the juvenile court questioned Child’s adult half-sibling about potential Native American relatives or tribal connections at the first detention hearing, satisfying the duty of initial inquiry.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A sibling is an extended family member under 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2), and the duty of inquiry is shared by the Agency and the court under section 224.2, subdivision (a); direct questioning by the court at the detention hearing satisfies the inquiry as to that individual. The opinion gives no further detail of the colloquy, so the conclusion rests on a thin record but is unchallenged.

Authorities

relied: In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192 — When ICWA inquiry or notice error is the only issue raised, the reviewing court may affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remand for the limited purpose of ICWA compliance.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied section 224.2, subdivision (b) and 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2) to the conceded failure to inquire of the paternal aunt, uncles, and NREFM caregiver, and ordered the conventional limited remand under In re Damian C. It did not, however, identify a standard of review or address whether the error was prejudicial, relying instead entirely on the Agency's concession, and it offered no analysis of the half-sibling inquiry beyond a single sentence.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 10/27/23 In re R.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 R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D082347 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. San Diego County No. EJ4854; Super Ct. Riverside Plaintiff and Respondent, County No. DPSW2300312)

v. C.S. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, K.S. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, C.S. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 C.S. (Father) and K.S. (Mother) appeal from jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning their child, R.S. (Child). The sole issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred by finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply before the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) completed its initial inquiry under ICWA and Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 224.2. We affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders but remand the case for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA inquiry requirements. Section 224.2 imposes an “affirmative and continuing duty” upon the Agency and the juvenile court to inquire whether a child subject to juvenile dependency may be a child of Native American ancestry. (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) Subdivision (b) of section 224.2 creates an expanded duty of initial inquiry that requires the Agency to ask “extended family member[s]” and “others who have an interest in the child” whether the child may have Native American ancestry. ICWA defines “ ‘extended family member’ ” to include the “child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or stepparent.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (c) [“ ‘extended family member’ . . . defined as provided in [§] 1903” of ICWA].)

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “raise[s] no substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Mother and Father identify five individuals they claim the Agency was reasonably able to contact and should have asked about possible Native American heritage: a paternal aunt; two paternal uncles; an adult half- sibling; and a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) who was the Child’s caregiver. As the Agency notes, the juvenile court questioned Child’s adult half- sibling about potential Native American relatives or tribal connections at the first detention hearing, satisfying the duty of initial inquiry. However, the Agency agrees it did not inquire of Child’s paternal aunt, paternal uncles, and the NREFM. It concedes that the NREFM has an “interest in the child” for purposes of section 224.2, subdivision (b), and identifies all of these individuals as “additional inquiry leads.” We agree with the Agency’s concession that it should make reasonable efforts to ask these individuals whether the Child may be a Native American child. Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remand for compliance with ICWA. Because Mother and Father do not contest the jurisdiction and disposition orders on any other grounds, we otherwise affirm these orders. (See, e.g., In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192, 199– 200.)

3 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s ICWA finding is reversed, and the jurisdictional and dispositional orders are otherwise affirmed. While this appeal was pending, the underlying action was transferred to the Superior Court of Riverside County. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Riverside County juvenile court (Super. Ct. Riverside County case No. DPSW2300312) with directions to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and section 224.2.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

In Re Damian C. D054918 · 2009-09-17