In re M.A. CA2/4

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Principles

ICWA and related California law2 reflect “a congressional determination to protect Indian children and to promote the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. The Legislature incorporated ICWA’s requirements into California law in 2006. (In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 91.)

2 stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum federal standards a state court must follow before removing an Indian child from his or her family.” (In re T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 287; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1902.) Both ICWA and California law define an “Indian child” as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian…