In re C.B. CA2/4

DISCUSSION

ICWA and related California law (see In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 91) reflect a legislative determination to protect Indian children, tribes, and families (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1124–1125 (Dezi C.)). Juvenile courts and child welfare agencies “have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a).)1 Agencies must inquire “[a]t the first contact with the child and each family member, including extended family members” (id., subd. (b)(1)) such as aunts or uncles (§ 224.1, subd. (c)(1)). When an agency performs an inadequate inquiry, we must conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and direct “the agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1125; accord In re J.F. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 468, 471 [conditional reversal where parent and department agreed ICWA inquiry was inadequate].)

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Mother contends the department did not adequately investigate or document its efforts to…