In re N.C. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Mother and Father contend the case should be remanded for compliance with ICWA’s inquiry requirements. We agree.

3 For purposes of ICWA, an “Indian child” is a child who either is a “member of an Indian tribe” or “is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe” because they are the biological child of a tribe member. (25 U.S.C § 1903; see also § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal definition].) There is an “affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child” (§ 224.2, subd. (a))—a duty that rests with the juvenile court and child services agency, not the child’s parents or family members (In re Dezi C. (Aug. 19, 2024, S275578) __ Cal.5th __, __ (Dezi C.) [slip opn. at p. 11]). This duty “can be divided into three phases: the initial duty to inquire, the duty of further inquiry, and the duty to provide formal ICWA notice.” (In re D.F. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558, 566; see Dezi C., at pp. __-__ [slip opn. at pp. 12-15].) At issue here are the child services agency’s duties of initial and further inquiry. The former requires CWS to “ask[] the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, [and any] others…