Description: Stockton, California family law lawyer represented father of V.G. in a parental rights termination action.

In February 2022, the Agency detained the minor V.G. (then a newborn) and her half sibling A.T.[2] (then nine years old) and filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). At that time, mother A.R. (mother) stated she had no known Indian ancestry and no knowledge of any family member with Indian ancestry.[3] Father had not yet been interviewed, as he was being held in county jail on felony charges. The Agency reported there was no reason to believe the minor was an Indian child on mother's side and it was unknown whether the minor was an Indian child on father's side.

Mother and father were both present at the February 24, 2022, detention hearing. The juvenile court asked both parents about possible Indian ancestry; both parents denied having knowledge of any such heritage. Mother's counsel provided the court with the name and telephone number of maternal aunt J.R. The minute order filed after the hearing stated, "NO ICWA has been found." Mother subsequently completed a parental notification of Indian status form (ICWA-020) confirming she had no known Indian heritage.

The social worker exchanged correspondence with father, who was incarcerated in state prison, regarding father's completion of a paternity test, an ICWA-020 form, and a family background interview. Father completed the paternity test and, on May 25, 2022, the juvenile court found him to be the biological father of the minor. The social worker informed father of the results, confirmed he was not eligible for parole until January 2028 and therefore could not reunify with the minor, and asked him to provide names and contact information for any extended relatives. Father subsequently completed the ICWA-020 form stating he had no known Indian heritage. He also provided the social worker with names and contact information for paternal grandmother H.G. and paternal stepgrandfather A.C.

In August 2022, the Agency reported the minor was in the care of maternal aunt A.P. who, among other things, coordinated contact between the minor and maternal grandmother. The Agency also reported there was no reason to believe the minor was an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA, as both parents denied any Native American ancestry.

The father and the paternal grandparents were present at the August 10, 2022, jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The court adjudged the minor a dependent of the juvenile court, bypassed reunification services to both parents, ordered the minor's continued removal from mother's custody, and adopted the Agency's recommended findings and orders. The ICWA was not discussed

* * *

Legal issue Did the juvenile court and the agency fulfill their inquiry and notice obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act before terminating parental rights?
Headnote

FAMILY LAW. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. The case concerns an appeal of a juvenile court order terminating parental rights and freeing a minor for adoption, where the appellant father contends the Agency failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry and notice requirements, and the juvenile court did not make findings regarding the applicability of the ICWA.

FAMILY LAW. INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT COMPLIANCE. The court conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s orders and remanded the matter for further proceedings due to the Agency's insufficient efforts to investigate the child’s potential Indian ancestry through available extended relatives, and the juvenile court’s failure to make requisite ICWA findings.

Key Phrases Juvenile court order. Parental rights termination. Indian Child Welfare Act. ICWA compliance. Dependency proceedings.

Outcome: Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: