In re C.L. CA2/8

DISCUSSION

Congress enacted ICWA “ ‘to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.’ ” (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 8.) ICWA requires notice to Indian tribes “ ‘In any involuntary proceeding in state court to place a child in foster care or to terminate parental rights where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved.’ ” (In re Isaiah W., at p. 8.) Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 imposes on the juvenile court and the Department “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child . . . .” (Id., subd. (a).) If there is “reason to believe [that an Indian child is] involved in a proceeding,” further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child “shall” be made,

3 including “[i]nterviewing . . . extended family members” to obtain the necessary information to notice the tribes. (Id., subd. (e)(1) & (2)(A); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) Here, the Department concedes the record does not disclose whether father was asked about his Indian ancestry. Unfortunately, father stopped communicating with…