1

Filed 9/21/21 In re F.B. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

In re F.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C092982

YUBA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

(Super. Ct. No. 

JVSQ2000053)

Appellants M.B. (mother) and R.S. (father), parents of the minor, appeal from the 

juvenile court’s disposition order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.)1 The parents 

contend the court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

§ 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) did not apply. Respondent Yuba County Health and Human 

Services Department (Department) concedes the issue. Finding the ICWA issue is 

premature, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

BACKGROUND2 

On June 29, 2020, the Department filed a dependency petition on behalf of the 

minor pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging a failure to protect by the parents’ 

inability to provide care due to their mental illness or substance abuse. The petition 

alleged the parents were involved in a pending dependency case related to the minor’s 

half-sibling’s and five siblings’ (collectively, siblings) removal resulting from mother’s 

use of a dog shock collar on the siblings as a form of discipline for potty training because 

mother was tired of buying diapers, unsanitary conditions in the home, and the parents’

use of one of the sibling’s urine for a drug test because father was afraid he would test 

positive for marijuana. The petition also alleged that mother gave birth to the minor, her 

seventh child, several weeks prior and failed to notify the Department of the birth until 

June 25, 2020.

The dependency petition included an Indian child inquiry attachment in which the 

social worker declared that mother gave the social worker reason to believe the minor 

was or might be an Indian child. The court ordered the minor detained.

The detention report and the jurisdiction report both stated ICWA “does not 

apply,” but noted that, in the siblings’ case, mother stated she had Cherokee and 

Nansemond Indian ancestry. Father denied any Indian heritage.

On August 18, 2020, the court sustained the allegations in the petition, exercised 

dependency jurisdiction over the minor, and ordered continued out-of-home placement. 

2 Because the parents’ sole claim challenges compliance with ICWA, we limit the 

background summary to ICWA-related facts and procedure unless otherwise relevant to 

the issue on appeal.
3

The court found the minor may be an Indian child and ordered the Department to notice 

the appropriate tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The court scheduled the 

disposition hearing to allow sufficient time for ICWA noticing.

The September 2020 disposition report again stated ICWA “does not apply,” but 

again noted mother previously stated in the siblings’ case that she had Cherokee and 

Nansemond Indian ancestry and, more recently, signed a parental notification of Indian 

ancestry form stating she may have Indian ancestry but did not identify a specific tribe.

At the October 8, 2020 contested disposition hearing, the court declared the minor 

a dependent of the juvenile court after finding there was a substantial danger to the 

minor’s health and safety if she were returned to the parents’ custody. The court found 

the parents each made minimal progress toward mitigating or alleviating the issues 

necessitating the minor’s removal and ordered supervised visitation for and reunification 

services to the parents. The court made no ICWA findings or orders.

The parents filed timely notices of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends, and father joins in her contention, that the dispositional order 

must be reversed due to noncompliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of 

ICWA despite a reason to believe the minor was an Indian child. The Department 

concedes the issue and agrees the matter must be remanded. As we shall explain, the 

ICWA issue is premature and we will therefore affirm the dispositional order.

“The juvenile court and social services agencies have an affirmative duty to 

inquire at the outset of the proceedings whether a child who is subject to the proceedings 

is, or may be, an Indian child. [Citation.]” (In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-

119.) When the juvenile court knows or has reason to know that a child involved in a 

dependency proceeding is an Indian child, ICWA requires that notice of the proceedings 

be given to any federally recognized Indian tribe of which the child might be a member 

or eligible for membership. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1903(8), 1912(a); In re Robert A. (2007) 
4

147 Cal.App.4th 982, 989.) “At that point, the social worker is required, as soon as 

practicable, to interview the child’s parents, extended family members, the Indian 

custodian, if any, and any other person who can reasonably be expected to have 

information concerning the child’s membership status or eligibility.” (In re Michael V.

(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 225, 233; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4)(A).)

ICWA notice must include all of the following information, if known: the child’s 

name, birthplace, and birth date; the name of the tribe in which the child is enrolled or 

may be eligible for membership; names and addresses (including former addresses) of the 

child’s parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, and other identifying information; 

and a copy of the dependency petition. (§ 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(A)-(H); In re D.W. (2011) 

193 Cal.App.4th 413, 417; In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 209.)

An ICWA notice “enables a tribe to determine whether the child is an Indian child 

and, if so, whether to intervene in or exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding. No foster 

care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding may be held until at least 10 

days after the tribe receives the required notice.” (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 5; 

25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).) “The juvenile court must determine whether proper notice was 

given under ICWA and whether ICWA applies to the proceedings.” (In re E.W. (2009) 

170 Cal.App.4th 396, 403.)

Here, mother indicated she may have Indian ancestry but did not specify any 

particular tribe(s). In the siblings’ case, mother indicated she may have Indian ancestry

through the Cherokee and Nansemond tribes. The record, however, is devoid of any 

ICWA-related documentation other than the Indian child inquiry attachment filed with 

the dependency petition. There is no indication in any of the Department’s reports that

the Department undertook any further ICWA inquiry of either of the parents or known 

relatives, if any. There is also no evidence in the record to demonstrate the Department 

made any attempt to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Cherokee or Nansemond 
5

tribes pursuant to applicable ICWA notice and inquiry requirements and the juvenile 

court’s order.

However, because the juvenile court made no final ICWA ruling at or before the 

challenged dispositional hearing as to whether ICWA applied to the proceedings, the 

parents’ claim is premature. That is, ICWA issues are not ripe for review. “ ‘Ripeness’

refers to the requirements of a current controversy.” (City of Santa Monica v. Stewart

(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 59.) An issue is not ripe for review unless and until it is 

“sufficiently concrete to allow judicial resolution even in the absence of a precise factual 

context.” (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 

170; see id. at pp. 170-172.) Because the minor’s dependency case is still ongoing, any 

perceived deficiencies with ICWA inquiry and noticing may still be resolved during the 

normal course of the ongoing dependency proceedings. Therefore, we decline the 

parents’ invitation to assess the adequacy of the ICWA inquiry and noticing process that 

is, based on our assessment of the record, still ongoing as well. (In re M.R. (2017) 

7 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [ICWA claim was premature where no final ICWA ruling made 

at dispositional hearing].)

However, because it appears on this record that, at a minimum, further inquiry is 

required of mother and any known relatives, we encourage the juvenile court and the 

Department to ensure full compliance with all applicable ICWA statutes as early in the 

remainder of the proceedings as possible.
6

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

 /s/

RAYE, P. J.

We concur:

 /s/

MURRAY, J.

 /s/

HOCH, J.