In re E.W. CA4/2

BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2021, the department filed a dependency petition on behalf of

father’s then three-year-old daughter E.W., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2

section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). Mother informed the department that ICWA

may apply to E.W. through the Chickasaw tribe. Mother later denied she had any Indian

ancestry as far as she knew, as did a paternal aunt.

In late August, father told the department E.W. had Choctaw Indian ancestry. The

paternal grandmother said the paternal great-grandmother was Choctaw and buried on a

“In addition, because ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1.)

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 reservation. She told the department to contact another paternal aunt, who might have

more information, but she did not have the paternal aunt’s phone number.

Later that month the court questioned father about his Indian heritage. Father said

he believed he had Chickasaw and Cheyenne…