Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1742202.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:44:51+00:00

Document:
IN RE: ABBIGAIL A. et al.
IN RE: ABBIGAIL A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joseph A., et al. Defendants and Respondents.
John F. Whisenhunt and Robyn Truitt Drivon, County Counsel, Traci F. Lee, Assistant County Counsel, and Lilly C. Frawley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stacey Kim–Jackson for Home Forever as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Jennifer B. Henning; Theresa G. Goldner, County Counsel (Kern), Karen S. Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Bryan C. Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for The California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and M. Elizabeth Handy for Defendants and Respondents. Mark Radoff, Delia Parr and Mark Vezzola for California Indian Legal Services, 45 California Indian Tribes, California Indian Law Association and Tribal STAR as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Kimball J.P. Sargeant, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Minors. John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Amber Blaha, Assistant Section Chief, and J. Brett Grosko, Trial Attorney, for The United States as Amicus Curiae.
We granted review to consider whether two state court rules adopted to implement ICWA are valid. When a child is eligible for tribal membership but is not an Indian child as defined in ICWA, rule 5.482(c) of the California Rules of Court requires the juvenile court to “proceed as if the child is an Indian child” and to take steps “to secure tribal membership for the child.” (Ibid.)1 We conclude rule 5.482(c) is invalid because it conflicts with the Legislature's intent to enforce ICWA by codifying its provisions, including the federal definition of Indian child (see Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 224–224.6; id., § 224.1, subd. (a); 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4)), thus leaving cases not involving Indian children subject to the statutes generally applicable in dependency proceedings. Rule 5.482(c) is inconsistent with those statutes, and with the Legislature's intent, and thus invalid. In contrast, the related rule 5.484(c)(2) merely directs the juvenile court to pursue tribal membership for a child who is already an Indian child as defined in ICWA, in order to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and to qualify the child for tribal services. This rule is consistent with state law and valid.
In view of the tribe's response, Joseph informed the court he intended to apply for membership. Following rule 5.482(c), the court stated it would proceed as if Abbigail and Justin were Indian children to whom ICWA applied. DHHS objected that ICWA did not apply because the children were not Indian children as defined by that law. In response, the court explained that “it seems likely [ICWA] will apply,” given Joseph's intention to pursue tribal membership, and that “it would really seem to be in everyone's interest to treat this case [as] what it's likely to become” and thus avoid the need for additional, future proceedings to comply with ICWA should the children's status change before disposition. The DHHS moved for reconsideration, arguing rule 5.482(c) was invalid. The court denied the motion and, following rule 5.482(c), stated it would proceed as if ICWA applied. The court followed the same rule by directing the DHHS and counsel to make reasonable efforts to secure tribal membership for the children. Two continuances were granted for this purpose.
In May 2013, Joseph and counsel for Abbigail and Justin reported the applications for tribal membership were still pending because the tribe required additional birth and death certificates. Continuing to proceed as if ICWA applied, the court held a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. (See Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 355, 358.) As ICWA would require, the court heard expert testimony to the effect that continued custody of Abbigail and Justin by their parents was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage (see 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e), (f)) and found that fact to be true by clear and convincing evidence (see 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e), (f)). Also as ICWA would require, the court found (1) that reasonable efforts had been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts had proved unsuccessful (see 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d)), and (2) that the children's placement with their maternal grandmother met ICWA's placement preferences (see 25 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(i) [“a member of the Indian child's extended family”] ). Based on these findings, the court adjudged the children to be dependents of the court and ordered them placed with their maternal grandmother.
We granted Joseph's petition for review.
A. Is Rule 5.482(c) Valid?
With that background we turn to the question whether rule 5.482(c) is valid. The rule provides: “If after notice has been provided as required by federal and state law a tribe responds indicating that the child is eligible for membership if certain steps are followed, the court must proceed as if the child is an Indian child and direct the appropriate individual or agency to provide active efforts under rule 5.484(c) to secure tribal membership for the child.” (Rule 5.482(c), italics added.) We conclude the rule is invalid as a matter of state law.
Similar reasoning supports the conclusion that rule 5.482(c) is invalid. As we have explained, “[t]he primary objective of Senate Bill No. 678,” which incorporated ICWA's requirements and definitional provisions into California statutory law, “was to increase compliance with ICWA.” (In re W.B., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 52, italics added; see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 678 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) June 20, 2006, p. 1 [bill believed “necessary to increase compliance with ICWA”]; see also Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 224–224.6; id., § 224.1, subd.(a) [definitions] ).) Nothing in the bill's language or history demonstrates the Legislature intended to apply ICWA's requirements to, or require membership applications be made on behalf of, children who are not Indian children as defined in ICWA. Instead, the Legislature left cases not involving Indian children subject to the statutes generally applicable in dependency proceedings. Rule 5 .482(c) is inconsistent with those statutes, and with the Legislature's intent, and thus invalid.
Joseph offers several arguments to the contrary. None is persuasive.
B. Is Rule 5.484(c)(2) Valid?
As noted, the Court of Appeal concluded rules 5.482(c) and 5.484(c)(2) were both invalid. That court, however, treated the rules as essentially identical. The parties do likewise in their briefs to this court. In fact, rule 5.484(c)(2) justifies separate consideration.
Unlike rule 5.482(c), which directs the juvenile court to proceed in certain cases “as if” a child were an Indian child, rule 5.484(c)(2) speaks only to the court's obligations in a case involving an “Indian child” as defined by law. Read in this manner, according to its plain language, the rule is not inconsistent with any state statute implementing ICWA. We do not understand any party to argue to the contrary.
Neither do we understand any party to argue that a court may not properly direct that steps be taken to pursue tribal membership for a child who, while not a member of a tribe, is already an Indian child to whom ICWA applies because he or she is both eligible for membership and also the biological child of a member. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1903(5); see Welf. & Inst.Code, § 224.1, subd. (a).) Tribal membership offers significant benefits to an Indian child, including the opportunity to develop a political, cultural, and social relationship with the tribe, and access to federally funded programs such as Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and those offered by the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Education. Federal and state law recognize the importance of such benefits to Indian children. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1902; Welf. & Inst.Code, § 224, subd. (a)(1); cf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, BIA, ICWA Proceedings, Discussion of Rule and Comments, 81 Fed.Reg. 38778, 38790, 38815 (June 14, 2016) [“In any particular case, ․ it may be appropriate to seek Tribal citizenship for the child, as this may make more services and programs available to the child.”].) No party contends the rule, read in this manner, is inconsistent with the California statutes incorporating ICWA or preempted by federal law. (Cf. Welf. & Inst.Code, § 224, subd. (d) [when state or federal law “provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child, or an Indian child's tribe, ․ the court shall apply the higher standard”]; 25 U.S.C. § 1921 [similar].) We thus conclude rule 5.484(c)(2) is valid.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed to the extent it holds that rule 5.484(c)(2) is invalid. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
2. This court has not been informed that Joseph's, Abbigail's or Justin's application for tribal membership has ever been granted.
3. The court in In re Jack C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 967, 981–982, applied rule 5.482(c) after concluding it was not preempted. We need not review that conclusion because we hold the rule is invalid as a matter of state law. In re Jack C. does not discuss the rule's validity under state law and should not, in view of our decision, be read as authority on that point.
WE CONCUR: CANTIL–SAKAUYE, C.J. CHIN, CORRIGAN, LIU, CUÉLLAR, and KRUGER, J.

References: v. 
 § 224
 § 1903
 § 1912
 § 1912
 § 1912
 § 1915
 § 224
 § 1903
 § 224
 § 1902
 § 224
 § 224
 § 1921