In Re Robert F Ca42

Jessica G. appealed from the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to her son Robert F. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by not asking various extended family members whether Robert had any Indian ancestry. DPSS contacted the maternal grandmother and paternal cousin but did not inquire about potential Indian ancestry. The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and terminated parental rights. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back, directing reconsideration in light of In re Ja.O. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 271. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded for DPSS to conduct a proper ICWA inquiry.

The central legal question is whether the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) properly discharged its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act. Mother argues that DPSS failed to ask various extended family members—including the maternal grandmother and paternal cousin—whether Robert F. had any Indian ancestry. The court must determine whether the agency's inquiry was adequate and proper, and whether the juvenile court's implied finding that ICWA did not apply to the proceedings was supported by sufficient evidence and record documentation.

The order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed. On remand, the juvenile court shall order DPSS to comply with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2 and, if applicable, the duty of further inquiry and the duty to provide notice to the proper tribes under ICWA. The court shall also order DPSS to comply with the documentation requirements of rule 5.481(a)(5) of the California Rules of Court. If the court determines that DPSS has complied and that ICWA does not apply, then the court shall reinstate the order terminating parental rights. If the court determines that ICWA applies, then it shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law.

The court conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the case with specific directives: (1) order DPSS to comply with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2(b) and duty of further inquiry under section 224.2(e) if applicable; (2) order DPSS to provide notice to proper tribes under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) and section 224.3; (3) order DPSS to comply with documentation requirements of rule 5.481(a)(5) of the California Rules of Court; (4) if DPSS complies and ICWA does not apply, reinstate the order terminating parental rights; (5) if ICWA applies, proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) imposes an affirmative and continuing duty on child welfare agencies and juvenile courts to inquire whether a child in dependency proceedings is or may be an Indian child. This duty consists of two phases: the duty of initial inquiry (must ask child, parents, extended family members including stepparents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first or second cousins, and others with interest about Indian ancestry upon first contact) and the duty of further inquiry (triggered when there is 'reason to believe' the child or parent may be a member or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe). The court's determination that an agency's inquiry was adequate, proper, and duly diligent is a discretionary function subject to deferential standard of review. If inquiry is inadequate, conditional reversal is required so the agency can cure the error.