In re B.Y. CA4/1

I.

INTRODUCTION

J.G. (Father) appeals from a final order entered pursuant to Welfare

and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 terminating parental rights to his infant son, B.Y. Father asserts two claims of error on appeal. First, Father contends that the juvenile court erred in failing “to make an explicit finding that ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)] did not apply to this case.” He argues that the lack of an express determination of ICWA’s inapplicability constitutes reversible error because recent changes in the law render an implied finding of ICWA inapplicability insufficient. Second, Father contends that the Agency’s initial ICWA inquiry was insufficient as to B.Y.’s mother. Specifically, Father posits that the Agency failed “to make immediate inquiries about the relatives of the minor about the child’s ancestry and the subsequent ‘disappearance’ of known family members.” He suggests that this court should require the Agency “to make a ‘due diligence’ effort to locate the missing relatives in much the same manner as it is required to exercise ‘due diligence’ to locate an absent parent.” We conclude that the juvenile court did not err with…