Filed 12/6/22 In re D.B. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.B., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E079380
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RIJ2100014)
v. OPINION
C.K. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Cheryl C. Murphy,
Michele A. Mathis and Harry (Skip) A. Staley,* Judges. Reversed with directions.
Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant C.K.
Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant I.B.
*Retired judge of the Kern Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI,
§ 6 of the Cal. Const.
1
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Melinda H. Frey,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
C.K. (Father) and I.B. (Mother) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their
parental rights to their infant child, D.B. They argue the Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with its duty of initial inquiry
1
into Father’s Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq.) and related California law (ICWA), and thus the juvenile court erroneously found
that ICWA did not apply. We agree and find that the error was prejudicial. We therefore
conditionally reverse and remand to allow the Department to fully comply with ICWA.
II.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
When D.B. was about six weeks old, the Department filed a juvenile dependency
3
petition on his behalf. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) The juvenile court ordered D.B.
1
“[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even
though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are
preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1
(Benjamin M.).)
2
We need provide only a brief overview of the facts and proceedings below
because we conclude the Department’s failure to comply with ICWA as to Father was
prejudicial and requires a remand.
3
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
2
detained from the parents. The court later sustained the petition, ordered D.B. removed
from the parents’ care, denied the parents services, and set the matter for a section 366.26
hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to D.B. and freed
him for adoption by his prospective adoptive parent, his paternal great uncle. Mother and
Father timely appealed.
During the dependency proceedings, the Department took steps to comply with
ICWA. The Department attached an ICWA-010 form to its petition stating that both
parents denied any Indian ancestry. Shortly afterward, Father submitted an ICWA-020
form denying that he or any family member had Indian ancestry. The Department
reported that the paternal great uncle, who eventually became D.B.’s prospective
adoptive parent, denied that he or any family member had Indian ancestry.
The Department did not contact any of Father’s other relatives to inquire whether
they had Indian ancestry. In particular, the Department did not ask the paternal
grandmother, who Father lived with and who the Department spoke with several times,
whether she had Indian ancestry. D.B.’s counsel also told the juvenile court and the
Department at a hearing that she had spoken with the paternal great-grandmother, who
expressed interest in D.B.’s placement. Counsel informed the paternal great-grandmother
to contact the Department, but nothing in the record suggests she ever spoke with the
Department.
In her ICWA-020 form, however, Mother stated that her mother is a member of a
Cherokee tribe. The Department thus sent ICWA notices to the Cherokee Nation and
3
certain Cherokee tribes, but all of them responded that D.B. is not an Indian child and is
not eligible for membership in the tribe.
Without any objection, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.
III.
DISCUSSION
Father, with Mother joining, argues the Department failed to comply with ICWA
by not asking the paternal grandmother and great-grandmother whether they had Indian
4
ancestry and thus whether D.B. may be an Indian child. They in turn argue that the
juvenile court erroneously found that ICWA does not apply before terminating their
parental rights. We agree.
We first note that the Department emphasizes the many steps it took to ensure that
Mother does not have Indian ancestry when arguing that it fulfilled its ICWA obligations.
But the parents do not claim the Department failed to inquire into Mother’s background.
They challenge only the Department’s failure to ask the paternal grandmother and
paternal great-grandmother whether they had Indian ancestry. The Department’s inquiry
into Mother’s Indian ancestry sheds no light on the issue and thus does not bear on
sufficiency of the Department’s inquiry into Father’s Indian ancestry. (See In re Oscar
H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 933 (Oscar H.) [declining to discuss sufficiency of ICWA
4
In her joinder notice, Mother also states that she appeals the juvenile court’s
denial of her section 388 petition. Because Mother has provided no argument on the
issue, she has forfeited the argument and we decline to consider it. (See In re S.C. (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
4
inquiry into mother’s side because “remand is warranted due to prejudicial error as to the
paternal family”].)
The Department and the juvenile court had an “affirmative and continuing duty to
inquir[e]” whether a child in a dependency proceeding “is or may be an Indian child.”
(§ 224.2, subd. (a).) When the Department takes a child into custody, it must ask “the
child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who
have an interest in the child,” and the reporting party (the party who reported the abuse or
neglect of the child) whether the child is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (b).)
“Extended family members” 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, subd. (2); § 224.2, subd. (b).)
We agree with the parents that the Department “clearly failed to comply with
its . . . duty of initial inquiry [under ICWA] by not asking extended [paternal] family
members . . . about possible Indian ancestry.” (In re Y.M. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 901,
916 (Y.M.).) For ICWA purposes, the paternal grandmother is an “extended family
member,” and the paternal great-grandmother is someone with “an interest in the child.”
(See In re Dominick D. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 560, 567.) Because both of them were
available during the dependency proceedings, the Department should have asked them if
they had Indian ancestry and whether D.B. is or may be an Indian child . (See ibid.;
Oscar H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 937; § 224.2, subd. (b); In re Dominick D., supra,
at p. 567.) By failing to do so, the Department failed to discharge its duty of initial
5
inquiry under ICWA and, in turn, the juvenile court erroneously found that ICWA did not
apply. (§ 224.2, subd. (b); Y.M., supra, at p. 916; Oscar H., supra, at p. 937; In re
Dominick D., supra, at p. 567; In re Ricky R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 671, 680 (Ricky R.).)
We therefore must conditionally reverse and remand unless the error was
5
harmless. (Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 740.) The Department’s failure to
comply with ICWA is prejudicial if “the record indicates that there was readily
obtainable information that was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is an
Indian child.” (Id. at p. 744.) This “does not require ‘proof of an actual outcome (that
the parent may actually have Indian heritage).’ [Citation.] The missing information need
only be relevant to the ICWA inquiry, ‘whatever the outcome will be.’” (Ricky R., supra,
82 Cal.App.5th at p. 679; accord, In re Antonio R. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 421, 435
(Antonio R.).
Under Benjamin M., the Department’s failure to inquire into the paternal
grandmother and great-grandmother’s potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial. No one
disputes that the Department could have contacted them to ask whether they had Indian
ancestry or whether they had reason to believe D.B. does. Their responses would “‘shed
meaningful light on whether there is reason to believe’ that [D.B. is an Indian child],
5
We acknowledge that the Courts of Appeal are deeply divided on how to review
ICWA inquiry errors and that our Supreme Court is poised to resolve the issue. (See In
re K.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 566, 611; In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 779-
782, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578.) Until the court does so, we will apply this
court’s decision in Benjamin M.
6
whatever the outcome of the inquiry may be.” (Ricky R., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p.
680.)
The Department argues no prejudicial error occurred under this court’s decisions
in Benjamin M. and Ricky R., because those cases involve distinguishable facts. In
particular, the Department argues Benjamin M. and Ricky R. do not apply here because
the ICWA inquiries the social services performed (or not) were different than the
Department’s here. The Department thus argues that although the relatives’ responses in
Benjamin M. and Ricky R. may have shed meaningful light on whether the dependent
child was an Indian child, that is not true here.
In Benjamin M., the social service agency could not locate the father and never
asked about his Indian ancestry. (Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 744-745.)
The agency’s failure to ask about his brother’s Indian ancestry therefore was prejudicial
because the agency effectively had no information about the father’s Indian ancestry.
(Ibid.) We thus agree with the Department that Benjamin M. is factually distinguishable.
However, in Ricky R., both parents, like the parents here, denied any Indian
ancestry. (Ricky R., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 676-677.) The dependent children were
placed with the mother’s cousin, who denied that her family had any Indian ancestry. (Id.
at p. 677.) Without much difficulty, this court held that the Department’s failure to ask
the maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, and paternal grandmother whether they had
Indian ancestry was prejudicial. (Id. at p. 680.) We noted that these family members
were readily available and reasoned that their responses necessarily would “‘shed
7
meaningful light on whether there is reason to believe’” that the children were Indian
children. (Ibid.)
This is because “[i]n most circumstances, the information in the possession of
extended relatives is likely to be meaningful in determining whether the child is an Indian
child—regardless of whether the information ultimately shows the child is or is not an
Indian child.” (Antonio R., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 435 [applying Benjamin M.].)
Thus, a social services agency’s failure to comply with its initial inquiry obligations
under ICWA is prejudicial error “in most circumstances.” (Ibid.)
Here, the paternal grandmother and great-grandmother were “readily available”
and their responses to an ICWA inquiry would be “shed meaningful light” on whether
D.B. is an Indian child, whatever they say. Thus, under Ricky R., the Department’s
failure to ask them about their Indian ancestry was prejudicial.
The Department relies on In re S.S. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 575 and In re J.W.
(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 384 in support of its harmlessness argument. We decline to
follow In re J.W. because it did not discuss or apply Benjamin M., and we find In re S.S.
unpersuasive.
In In re S.S., the appellate court held the social services agency’s failure to inquire
into the maternal grandmother’s Indian ancestry was harmless under Benjamin M. (In re
S.S., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 582.) The court reasoned that the maternal grandmother,
mother’s counsel, and S.S.’s counsel wanted S.S. placed with the maternal grandmother,
yet neither she, Mother’s counsel, or S.S.’s counsel suggested she had Indian ancestry.
8
(Ibid.) In the court’s view, their failure to do so implied that the maternal grandmother
did not have Indian ancestry because they had “a strong incentive” to inform the juvenile
court of the any facts suggesting that S.S. was an Indian child. (Ibid.)
We find this reasoning unpersuasive for the reasons outlined in Antonio R.
(Antonio R., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 435 [disagreeing with In re S.S.’s reasoning and
application of Benjamin M].) Under Benjamin M.’s prejudice analysis, we do not
speculate about whether the extended family members might have information that
suggests the child is an Indian child. (See ibid.) We instead ask whether “the
information in the possession of extended relatives is likely to be meaningful in
determining whether the child is an Indian child—regardless of whether the information
ultimately shows the child is or is not an Indian child.” (Ibid.)
The Department argues any ICWA error was harmless for the additional reason
that D.B. was placed with his paternal great-uncle, and points to the recent decision from
our colleagues in Division One, Y.M., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th 901. Applying Benjamin
M., our colleagues held in a case whether both parents denied any Indian ancestry that a
social services agency’s failure to ask the paternal grandmother and grandfather whether
they had Indian ancestry was harmless for two reasons. (Y.M., supra, at pp. 917-918.)
First, the “Father lived with the paternal grandmother during the dependency
proceedings and therefore presumably could have asked her at any time whether she
knew of any possible Indian ancestry.” (Y.M., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 917.) Because
the father “had a motive to ask, and could have easily asked” whether his mother had
9
Indian ancestry, the Y.M. court concluded her response an ICWA inquiry would not
provide meaningful information bearing on whether the dependent child was or may be
an Indian child. (Ibid.)
Second, “because during the dependency proceedings the paternal grandfather had
sought placement of [the dependent child], he presumably would have had a strong
incentive to raise any Indian ancestry in support of that goal, but he did not do so.”
(Y.M., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 917-918.) The Y.M. court thus concluded that the
paternal grandfather was unlikely to have information that would meaningfully bear on
whether the dependent child was an Indian child. (Id. at p. 918.)
The Department contends Y.M. is materially indistinguishable and urges us to
follow it here. We decline to do so. The Y.M. court assumed that the paternal
grandparents would not have meaningful information on whether their grandchild was an
Indian child. The court reached that decision by speculating that the father would have
asked his mother, who lived with him, whether she had Indian ancestry and by
speculating that the paternal grandfather would have raised his Indian ancestry during the
dependency proceedings because he wanted his dependent grandchild placed with him.
(Y.M., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 917-918.)
This kind of “[s]peculation . . . has no place in the analysis of prejudicial error
where there is an inadequate initial inquiry.” (Antonio R., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p.
435.) There was no indication in Y.M. that the father asked his mother whether she had
Indian ancestry, nor was there any evidence that the paternal grandfather knew he had an
10
incentive to raise his Indian ancestry (if any). It is thus possible that the father and
paternal grandmother in Y.M. did not discuss their Indian ancestry and that the paternal
grandfather did not know that his Indian ancestry (if any) would have supported his goal
of becoming his dependent grandchild’s caregiver. We therefore disagree with Y.M.’s
conclusion that the silence in the record about the paternal grandparents’ Indian ancestry
suggests that they had none. (Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 745 [“While we
cannot know how Father’s brother would answer the inquiry, his answer is likely to bear
meaningfully on the determination at issue about his brother.”].) Applying Y.M. to
conclude that D.B.’s paternal grandmother and great-grandmother have no information
that might bear on whether D.B. is an Indian child would require us to inappropriately
speculate about their responses to a proper ICWA inquiry. (See Antonio R., supra, 76
Cal.App.5th at p. 435.)
We also decline to follow Y.M. because its prejudice analysis fails to account for
tribal interests. (See Antonio R., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 435-436; In re Isaiah W.
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 13 [“Indian tribes have interests protected by ICWA that are separate
and distinct from the interests of parents of Indian children”].) As a result, D.B.’s
placement with his paternal great-uncle does not render the Department’s ICWA error
harmless, even though placement with a relative is the first placement under ICWA (25
11
U.S.C. § 1915, subd. (a)). (See Oscar H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at pp. 938-939 (lead
6
opn. of Wiley, J.).)
If the Department had conducted a proper ICWA inquiry and found reason to
believe ICWA applied, this “case could have followed a different path with a different
outcome.” (Oscar H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 938.) If the Department learned from
the paternal grandmother or great-grandmother that D.B. might be an Indian child, then
(1) the tribe could intervene in the dependency proceedings (§ 224.4; see 25 U.S.C.
§ 1911(c)), (2) the tribe may have a different placement preference for D.B. (see 25
U.S.C. § 1915(c)), and (3) the tribe may not have terminated parental rights. (See Oscar
H., supra, at pp. 938-939] (lead opn. of Wiley, J.).)
In short, D.B.’s placement with his paternal great-uncle does not necessarily
account for tribal interests, which may have affected the outcome of this case. (In re
Oscar H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at pp. 938-939].) We cannot know to the certainty
ICWA requires whether D.B. is or may be an Indian child until his paternal grandmother
and great-grandmother are asked about their Indian ancestry. The Department’s deficient
inquiry fell “short of that required to gather the information needed to meaningfully
safeguard the rights of the tribes, as intended under ICWA and California law.” (In re
K.H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 620.) We therefore conclude the Department’s failure
6
Oscar H. is a splintered decision. Justice Wiley authored a majority opinion,
which Judge Harutunian partially joined. (Oscar H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 940
(conc. opn. of Harutunian, J.). Judge Harutunian did not join Justice Wiley’s discussion
“in dicta” about why the child’s placement with the maternal grandmother did not render
the ICWA error harmless, which we discuss here. (Ibid.)
12
to inquire into their Indian ancestry was prejudicial and we must conditionally reverse the
order terminating parental rights. (Ricky R., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 680.)
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed. On remand, the
juvenile court shall order the Department to comply with the duty of initial inquiry
(§ 224.2, subd. (b)) and, if applicable, the duty of further inquiry (§ 224.2, subd. (e)) and
the duty to provide notice to the pertinent tribes (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); § 224.3). If the
juvenile court determines that ICWA does not apply, then the court shall reinstate the
order terminating parental rights. If the court determines that ICWA applies, then it shall
proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
FIELDS
J.
13
In re D.B. CA4/2
Combined Opinion