In re E.G. CA4/2

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because the parents’ appeals focus solely on the adequacy of DPSS’s inquiries

under ICWA, we need not recite the facts of this case in detail. After investigating a

referral of general neglect of the children, DPSS detained the children pursuant to

1 “The language of both federal and state law uses the term ‘Indian.’ California courts have used alternative terms, such as ‘American Indian’ or ‘Native American’; we use the term ‘Indian’ throughout to reflect the statutory language . . . . No disrespect is intended.” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1125, fn. 1.)

2 protective custody warrants and filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging the

children were dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2

section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Mother and father consistently denied having any

Indian ancestry. The juvenile court ordered the children removed from the parents and

subsequently sustained the allegations of general neglect, declared the children to be

dependents of the court, and directed DPSS to offer the parents family reunification

services. The court found ICWA did not apply.

Although DPSS initially…