In re S.J. CA4/2

I.

INTRODUCTION

K.J. (Father) and A.W. (Mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s order

terminating parental rights as to their now 12-year-old daughter S.J.1 The parents argue

that the juvenile court and the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services

(CFS) failed to discharge its duty of initial and further inquiry under state law

implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.),

and therefore substantial evidence did not support the court’s finding that ICWA did not

apply.

In a nonpublished decision, we affirmed the order terminating parental rights on

the ground that there was no need for an extended-family initial inquiry under Welfare

and Institutions Code3 section 224.2, subdivision (b), because S.J. was taken into

protective custody pursuant to a warrant under section 340. (In re S.J. (Dec. 5, 2023,

E081498) [nonpub. opn.].)

1 S.J.’s siblings (J.J. and K.J.) are not subjects to this appeal.

2 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735,…