Filed 07/14/23 In re W.R. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re W.R. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.V.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G062231

 (Super. Ct. Nos. 22DP0548,

 22DP0548A, 22DP0549, 

 22DP0549A, 22DP0550 &

 22DP0550A)

 O P I N I O N

In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M. et al.,

 Defendants and Appellants.

 (Super. Ct. Nos. 22DP1363)

 O P I N I O N
2

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Isabel 

Apkarian, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant C.V.

Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant A.M.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

C.V. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and 

dispositional orders concerning three of her children, W.R., M.V., and D.V., claiming the 

Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to comply with its inquiry duties 

under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and related 

California law. A.M., D.V.’s father, asserts a similar challenge as to D.V.

1

 SSA 

concedes that its ICWA inquiry was insufficient and that remand is necessary under this 

court’s precedent. We agree and therefore conditionally reverse and remand for SSA to 

comply with its duties under ICWA.

FACTS

I. Overview of the Proceedings Below

In May 2022, SSA filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code

section 300 on behalf of W.R. (age 12) and M.V. (age 10), alleging, inter alia, that A.M.

had sexually abused W.R., and that Mother had failed to protect her, used excessive 

discipline against the children, and failed to ensure their educational needs were met.

2

The juvenile court detained the children, and they were placed with their maternal 

1

The other children’s fathers are not parties to this appeal. 

2

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

grandfather and step-grandmother. In July 2022, the juvenile court largely sustained the 

petition’s allegations, removed the children from parental custody, and ordered family 

reunification services.

In October 2022, Mother gave birth to D.V., who tested positive for 

amphetamine and methamphetamine. SSA filed a petition under section 300 as to D.V.

The juvenile court detained him, and he was later placed with the maternal grandparents.

That same month, SSA filed a subsequent petition under section 342, alleging that W.R.

and M.V. were subject to juvenile court jurisdiction due to Mother’s substance abuse, 

potential domestic violence issues between Mother and A.M., and the abuse and neglect 

of D.V.

In January 2023, the juvenile court held a hearing on the original petition as 

to D.V. and the subsequent petition as to the older children. Following the hearing, the

court sustained both petitions. It removed D.V. from parental custody and ordered family 

reunification services. The disposition as to the older children remained the same. 

II. Facts Related to ICWA

From the inception of the proceedings and on multiple subsequent 

occasions, Mother consistently denied any Indian heritage. Mother told SSA that she had 

nine siblings and that the maternal grandmother lived in Mexico. SSA interviewed the 

maternal grandfather and a maternal aunt, who both denied having Indian ancestry. 

However, SSA did not attempt to obtain the names and contact information for other 

maternal relatives from either the maternal grandfather or the maternal aunt. And 

although W.R. said she was close with another maternal aunt and SSA reports mentioned 

a maternal uncle, it does not appear SSA attempted to locate and interview these relatives 

regarding potential Indian heritage. Following the July 2022 jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, the juvenile court ordered Mother to provide SSA with the names and contact 
4

information of any relative or interested party who may know of possible Indian heritage. 

As far as the record shows, Mother provided no additional relatives’ information.3 

When SSA initiated the proceeding as to D.V., A.M. denied Indian 

ancestry. A.M. reported he was born in Mexico and his parents were deceased but he had 

“‘lots’” of siblings. He told SSA he would provide a list of his family members and their 

contact information, but the record does not reflect that he ever did so. A.M. identified 

D.V.’s paternal aunt E.M. as part of a “Safety Network,” but as far as the record shows, 

he did not provide her contact information. Following the juvenile court’s January 2023 

findings and orders, Mother and A.M. timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Under ICWA, “[i]n any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the 

court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking . . . 

termination of parental rights to[ ] an Indian child shall notify . . . the Indian child’s tribe 

. . . of the pending proceedings and [its] right [to intervene].”

4

 (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).) 

“This notice requirement, which is also codified in California law [citation], 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.” (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 5.) 

“‘“ICWA itself does not impose a duty on courts or child welfare agencies 

to inquire as to whether a child in a dependency proceeding is an Indian child.”’ 

[Citation.]” (In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 551.) The federal regulations 

3

Because Mother does not contend that SSA’s inquiry of the families of the 

older children’s fathers was inadequate, we do not detail SSA’s efforts in that regard. 

4

“For these purposes, an ‘“Indian child”’ is a child who (1) is ‘a member of 

an Indian tribe,’ or (2) ‘is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological 

child of a member of an Indian tribe.’ [Citations.] By its terms, this definition turns ‘“on 

the child’s political affiliation with a federally recognized Indian Tribe,”’ not 

‘necessarily’ ‘the child’s race, ancestry, or “blood quantum.”’ [Citation.]” (In re Dezi C.

(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 780, fn. 6.)
5

implementing ICWA require such inquiry only of participants in the proceedings. (Ibid.) 

Under state law, however, the juvenile court and county welfare department have an 

“affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition under 

Section 300 . . . has been filed, is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) A 

duty of initial inquiry is triggered upon placement of a child in the department’s custody, 

and “includes, but is not limited to, asking the . . . parents, . . . extended family members, 

[and] others who have an interest in the child . . . whether the child is, or may be, an 

Indian child.”

5

(§ 224.2, subd. (b).)

Here, SSA concedes its ICWA inquiry was insufficient because, after 

Mother failed to provide SSA the names and contact information for some extended 

family members, the agency did not attempt to obtain this information from maternal 

relatives with whom it did have contact.6 We agree. While a welfare agency’s initial 

inquiry need not be so exhaustive as to ensure “‘[no] stone is left unturned’” (In re K.H.

(2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 566, 603), the agency must pursue readily available leads (In re 

G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15, 30-31 [inadequate inquiry where SSA did not attempt to 

contact paternal grandmother, despite father’s report that he had successfully contacted 

her on LinkedIn and indication she may have information about family’s Indian 

ancestry]). SSA further concedes that, under this court’s precedents, the deficiency in its 

5

A requirement of “further” inquiry is triggered if the department receives 

information establishing reason to believe the child is an Indian child. (§ 224.2, 

subd. (e).) If the department receives information establishing reason to know the child is 

an Indian child, notice must be given to the child’s potential tribes, and the department 

must exercise due diligence in verifying whether the child is, in fact, an Indian child. 

(§§ 224.2, subds. (f)-(g), 224.3, subds. (a)-(b); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)

6

A.M. suggests SSA should also have contacted D.V.’s paternal aunt E.M. 

and other, unnamed extended relatives, but he does not address how the agency might 

have done so, given his failure to provide information about his relatives in response to 

SSA’s inquiries. Because we remand for additional inquiry, we need not decide whether 

SSA could and should have done more in this respect. 
6

inquiry requires reversal. (In re E.V. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 691, 698 [noting this court 

“established a clear rule that requires reversal in all cases where the ICWA inquiry rules 

were not followed”].) Accordingly, we remand the matter for SSA to comply with its 

obligations under ICWA.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction findings and disposition orders are conditionally reversed. 

(See In re Cody B. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1014.) The matter is remanded to the 

juvenile court to order SSA to conduct a compliant ICWA inquiry, including the required 

inquiry as to available extended relatives. In aid of this inquiry, the court shall order the 

parents to provide all available information regarding the children’s extended family 

members and shall enforce its order. After ensuring SSA has complied with the inquiry 

requirements of ICWA and related California law (and any notice requirement, if 

applicable), the court shall determine whether ICWA applies. If the court determines 

ICWA does not apply, it shall reinstate its jurisdiction findings and disposition orders. If 

the court determines ICWA does apply, it shall proceed as required by ICWA. 

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

DELANEY, J.