In re D.R. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the maternal great-grandmother's disclosure she may have

Cherokee heritage meets the minimal showing required to trigger the ICWA inquiry and

notice requirements. Accordingly, she asserts the Agency was required to make further

inquiry and provide all available information to the tribe in order to effectuate meaningful

notice; however, the Agency failed to inquire with the maternal relatives regarding

possible Indian heritage. The Agency submits Mother should be precluded from raising

an ICWA claim because she did not object to the juvenile court's ICWA finding.

Assuming we consider the merits, the Agency submits the juvenile court met its initial

duty of inquiry as to ICWA and there was no duty of further inquiry or notice under

ICWA. We reject the Agency's forfeiture argument. We also conclude the Agency's

inquiry was inadequate, but when remedied, may obviate the need for notice.

3 The recently updated "Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child

Custody Proceedings" (Guidelines) provide that tribes have the sole jurisdiction and

authority to determine whether a child is eligible for membership.…