Reported / Citable
Background
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition in 2022 over Bella L. and her younger sibling, citing the father’s domestic violence and the mother’s failure to protect. Both parents filed ICWA-020 forms denying any Native American heritage, and DCFS interviewed each parent multiple times during the case. Each consistently denied any tribal ancestry.
Over the course of the dependency proceedings, DCFS asked seven other paternal relatives — including the children’s paternal great aunt and great uncle who were the placement caregivers — about Native American heritage. None reported any. The agency did not interview the paternal grandfather. After multiple incidents of continued domestic violence and a section 387 supplemental petition, the juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights and freed the children for adoption.
Both parents appealed, challenging only the adequacy of DCFS’s initial ICWA inquiry under California’s recently amended dependency law and Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Applying the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re Dezi C., the panel held that a juvenile court’s finding of an adequate initial ICWA inquiry must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence — even if the agency did not interview every potentially relevant relative. The substantial-evidence inquiry asks whether the totality of the agency’s questioning and the responses received provided a meaningful basis to conclude there was no reason to know the child is an Indian child.
Here, both parents repeatedly denied any Native American heritage on multiple occasions, and seven paternal relatives — including those caring for the children — confirmed that denial. Although DCFS did not interview the paternal grandfather, the consistent and broadly sourced negative responses provided substantial evidence that the agency had no reason to know ICWA applied. Failing to ask the paternal grandfather, on this record, did not undermine the juvenile court’s finding.
Because the ICWA inquiry was supported by substantial evidence under Dezi C., the order terminating parental rights was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Under In re Dezi C., a juvenile court’s adequate-initial-inquiry finding is reviewed for substantial evidence; the agency need not interview every potentially relevant relative if the existing inquiry provides a meaningful evidentiary basis.
- Consistent denials by both parents and several extended-family members can support a substantial-evidence finding even when one specific relative was not interviewed.
- Appellate courts will not automatically reverse termination orders based on a perceived gap in the relative-by-relative inquiry; the focus is on the totality of the agency’s efforts.
- DCFS and other county agencies should still document interviews with as many relatives as practically possible to fortify the record.
- Parents seeking ICWA-based reversals must show how additional inquiry would likely have produced a different result, not merely that one relative was not interviewed.
Why It Matters
The decision is part of California’s continuing post-Dezi C. landscape, in which the appellate courts apply a deferential substantial-evidence review to ICWA-inquiry findings rather than the strict step-by-step review some earlier opinions used. For DCFS and analogous county dependency agencies across California, the case provides reassurance that thorough but not exhaustive relative inquiries can satisfy ICWA’s initial-inquiry requirement.
For dependency counsel and parents’ advocates, the case underscores that successful ICWA reversal arguments must focus on whether the gaps in the inquiry materially undermine the substantial-evidence finding. Generic complaints about not interviewing every relative are unlikely to succeed. The opinion is also a reminder for the agency to keep careful records of every relative contacted and the responses received; that documentation is what carries the day on appeal.