In Re Adam N.

The notice provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act (the Act) ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) has been the source of a significant number of juvenile dependency appeals filed in the Third Appellate District, and undoubtedly in all of California's Courts of Appeal. There seems to be much uncertainty regarding what circumstances are necessary in order for a juvenile court to know, or have reason to know, that a dependency proceeding involves an Indian child within the meaning of the Act, thus requiring the juvenile court to "notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe ... of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention." ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a); further section references are to this code unless specified otherwise.)

In this case, a father whose parental rights were terminated claims the juvenile court erred by failing to give such notice to "the Blackfeet tribe" after the father said "he believed that he has Blackfoot [ sic ] Indian heritage on his mother's side of the family." [1] We disagree.

As we shall explain, the father's unspecific expression of belief that he had Indian heritage was insufficient to trigger the notice…