In re J.M. CA5

INTRODUCTION

S.M. (mother) filed a timely notice of appeal following a contested dispositional hearing. Mother’s sole claim is that because the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether J.M. is or may be an Indian child,1 in compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, former subdivision (b),2 the juvenile court erred when it found that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply. Mother seeks reversal of the court’s ICWA finding and remand for further proceedings consistent with the law.3 Based on the combination of the parents’ representations that they do not have any Native American ancestry and prior findings by the juvenile court that ICWA does not apply, the agency disputes there was any error and contends the court’s ICWA finding is supported by substantial evidence. If this court finds error, the agency contends we may nevertheless affirm the court’s orders and findings given its commitment to reviewing its

“[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we [may at times] do the same for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native…