In re E.T. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the orders terminating her parental rights should be conditionally vacated because CWS did not

2 interview extended family members about her sons’ possible Indian ancestry. We disagree. For purposes of ICWA, an “Indian child” is a child who either is a “member of an Indian tribe” or “is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe” because they are the biological child of a tribe member. (25 U.S.C § 1903; see also Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal definition].) There is an “affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) The duty to inquire “begins with the initial contact” (ibid.), and requires CWS to “ask[] the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, [and any] others who have an interest in the child . . . whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child” (id., subd. (b)). Then, “[a]t the first appearance in [juvenile] court of each party, the court [must] ask each participant present in the hearing whether [they] know[] or [have] reason to know that the child is an Indian child.” (Id., subd. (c).) The court must also…