Filed 5/17/20 In re N.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN RE N.C.,

A Person Coming Under The 

Juvenile Court Law.

_____________________________

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.G.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Juv. No. B309222

(Super. Ct. No. 19JV00451)

(Santa Barbara County)

S.G. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating parental rights to her minor child N.C. with a 
2

permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,

1 § 366.26.)

Mother contends the court and Santa Barbara County Child 

Welfare Services (CWS) failed to comply with the inquiry 

requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C.S. 

§ 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother and R.C. (father)2 are the natural parents of N.C.

born in January 2017. On October 30, 2019, CWS filed a 

dependency petition as to N.C. alleging failure to protect (§ 300,

subd. (b)). The petition alleged among other things that on 

October 28, N.C. had been found alone at a fast food restaurant. 

That same date, father tested positive for amphetamines,

methamphetamines, and opiates. Mother also admitted recent 

methamphetamine use and both parents had significant drugrelated criminal histories. 

In its report for the October 31, 2019 detention hearing,

CWS stated that the father had told the social worker he may 

have “Chumash [ancestry] down the line.” The day of the 

hearing, father filed an ICWA-030 Parental Notification of Indian 

Status form stating that he “may have Indian ancestry” through 

the “Coastal Chumash” tribe. Mother denied any Native 

American ancestry. The juvenile court found that ICWA may 

apply. N.C. was ordered detained in foster care and the matter 

was set for a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. 

In its December 2019 jurisdiction and disposition report, 

CWS recommended that both parents be offered reunification 

services. The social worker also reported that she had spoken to

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code.

2 Father is not a party to this writ proceeding.
3

the paternal grandmother (C.D.) about N.C.’s possible Native 

American ancestry. C.D. told the social worker that “her 

cousins[s] are Coastal Chumash; however, she does not [k]now if 

her [sic] or her siblings are registered with the tribe.” At the 

conclusion of the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing,

the court placed N.C. with C.D. and awarded both parties 

reunification services and monitored visitation. 

In a June 2020 six-month status review report, CWS 

recommended that reunification services be terminated and the 

matter be set for a section 366.26 hearing. CWS reported that 

neither parent had participated in their case plans or visited N.C. 

CWS also requested a finding that the ICWA did not apply. CWS 

noted that neither parent had “responded to [CWS’s] efforts to 

contact them by telephone or certified mail to provide ancestral 

information” and that father had said he may have Native 

American ancestry through the “Chumash Coastal Band,” which 

is not a federally-recognized tribe. At the conclusion of the sixmonth review hearing, the court terminated reunification 

services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. 

On July 30, 2020, CWS sent ICWA notices for the section 

366.26 hearing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Santa 

Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the non-federally recognized

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, and the Secretary of the 

Interior. The notice identified C.D. as the paternal grandmother 

but misspelled her surname. On August 13, 2020, the Santa 

Ynez Band of Chumash Indians sent a response stating that N.C. 

was not a member of the tribe and was not eligible for 

enrollment. The notice sent to the Coastal Band of the Chumash 

Nation was returned as undeliverable. 

At the initial section 366.26 hearing, the court found that 

ICWA did not apply. At the conclusion of the contested section
4

366.26 hearing, the court terminated parental rights to N.C. with 

a permanent plan of adoption. 

DISCUSSION

In her sole claim on appeal, mother contends the juvenile 

court and CWS failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of 

ICWA. We conclude otherwise. 

“Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 in response to ‘rising 

concern in the mid-1970’s over the consequences to Indian 

children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of abusive child 

welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers 

of Indian children from their families and tribes through 

adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.’ 

[Citation.]” (In re Isaiah. W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7 (Isaiah W.).) 

“In California, . . . persistent noncompliance with ICWA led the 

Legislature in 2006 to ‘incorporate[ ] ICWA’s requirements into 

California statutory law.’ [Citations.]” (In re Abbigail A. (2016)

1 Cal.5th 83, 91.) ICWA and California law define an “Indian 

child” as a child who is either a member of an Indian tribe or is 

eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological 

child of a member of an Indian tribe. (25 U.S.C.S. § 1903 (4),

§ 224.1, subds. (a) & (b).) 

The juvenile court and child services agencies have an 

affirmative and continuing duty under ICWA and related 

California law to inquire whether a child who is the subject of a 

dependency proceeding is or may be an Indian child. (Isaiah W., 

supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 7-8.) The scope of the duty of inquiry is 

defined in regulations promulgated under ICWA (see 25 C.F.R.

§ 23.107 et seq.), California statutes, and rules of court. (In re 

T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 290-291.)

The child services agencies’ initial duty of inquiry at the 

beginning of a child welfare proceeding includes “asking the 
5

child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family 

members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party 

reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, 

an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).) The court must inquire at 

each party’s first appearance, whether any participant in the 

proceeding “knows or has reason to know that the child is an 

Indian child.” (§ Id., subd. (c).) Part of the initial inquiry also 

includes requiring each party to complete the ICWA-020 form.

(Cal. Rules of Court,3 rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).)

When information is provided “suggesting that either the 

parent of the child or the child is a member or may be eligible for 

membership in an Indian tribe,” there is reason to believe that an 

Indian child is involved in a proceeding, and further inquiry is

required. (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(1); In re T.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 290, fn. 14.) Further inquiry includes interviewing parents 

and extended family members to obtain information such as the 

names of the child’s “biological parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents, . . . as well as their current and former addresses, 

birth dates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment 

information of other direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any 

other identifying information, if known.” (§ 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(C); 

see also § 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A); rule 5.481(a)(4)(A).) The agency 

engaging in further inquiry should also contact the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, the State Department of Social Services, and any 

tribes the child may be affiliated with, and anyone else, that 

might have information regarding the child’s membership or 

eligibility in a tribe. (§ 224.2, subds. (e)(2)(B) & (e)(2)(C); rule 

5.481(a)(4)(B) & (C).) If the court or the child services agency has 

3 Subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of 

Court.
6

reason to know that the child is an Indian child under ICWA, 

then the relevant tribes must be given notice of the proceedings. 

(25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(a); § 224.3, subd. (a).)

“Where, as here, the juvenile court finds ICWA does not 

apply to a child, ‘[t]he finding implies that . . . social workers and 

the court did not know or have a reason to know the children 

were Indian children and that social workers had fulfilled their 

duty of inquiry.’ [Citations.] ‘We review a court’s ICWA findings 

for substantial evidence. [Citations.] “We must uphold the 

court’s orders and findings if any substantial evidence, 

contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them, and we resolve all 

conflicts in favor of affirmance.”’ [Citation.] The appellant ‘“has 

the burden to show that the evidence was not sufficient to 

support the findings and orders.’’’ [Citation.]” (In re J.S. (2021) 

62 Cal.App.5th 678, 688.)

We agree with CWS that a sufficient ICWA inquiry was 

conducted in this case. Father claimed Native American ancestry 

through the “Coastal Chumash” tribe. Moreover, father’s mother 

C.D. verified that father’s claimed ancestry was through this 

tribe. As mother concedes in her opening brief, the Coastal 

Chumash tribe (Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation) is not a 

federally-recognized tribe. Accordingly, ICWA did not apply. 

(See In re K.P. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1, 5-6; In re John V. (1992) 

5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1216-1217.) 

Mother contends the social worker could not reasonably 

conclude that father and C.D.’s reference the “Coastal Chumash”

tribe was intended as a reference to the Coastal Band of the 

Chumash Nation. We are not persuaded. In the ICWA matrix

included in CWS’s six-month status review report, the social 

worker characterized father as referring to “the Coastal Chumash 

Band.” Neither parent objected to this characterization. 
7

Moreover, mother does not identify any federally-recognized tribe 

with a similar name. Under the circumstances, the social worker 

reasonably concluded that father was claiming Native American 

ancestry through the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, such 

that ICWA did not apply.

In re T.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th 275, which mother cites in 

support of her claim, is inapposite. In that case, the mother filed 

an ICWA-020 form stating her belief that she may have Cherokee 

ancestry on her maternal side and possible Native American 

ancestry through her paternal grandfather. (Id. at p. 292.) The 

mother did not claim, as father and C.D. did here, that her 

Native American ancestry was through a non-federally 

recognized Indian tribe. Because father and C.D.’s statements 

did not give CWS reason to believe that N.C. was an Indian child 

the court did not err finding that ICWA did not apply.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is 

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

TANGEMAN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant. 

Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 

Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.