Filed 3/11/25 In re S.B. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re S.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E084768
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J298021 & J298022) v. OPINION M.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,
Judge. Affirmed.
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Landon Villavaso, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 In this appeal, defendant and appellant M.B. (mother) contends plaintiff and
respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) and the juvenile
court failed to satisfy the duty of initial inquiry regarding the maternal extended family
members, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901
et seq.) and Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 224.2, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).
We disagree and affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A. Referral, Petition, and Detention.
Mother and Z.B. (father) are the parents of B.B. (born 2020) and S.B. (born
2023).2 On July 28, 2023, CFS received a referral alleging S.B. tested positive for
amphetamine at the time of birth. Mother admitted to using while pregnant, and she has a
prior child welfare history regarding her substance abuse. CFS obtained a detention
warrant, removed the children from parents’ custody, and filed a petition alleging the
children were at substantial risk of harm as described in section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
mother and father have a history of substance abuse, and both knew or should have
known of each other’s substance abuse history.
At the detention hearing on August 4, 2023, the juvenile court made ICWA
inquiries of mother, father, and paternal grandparents; all denied Indian ancestry. The
paternal grandparents and great-grandmother filled out “RELATIVE: Family Finding and
1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Mother’s oldest child, R.S. (born 2016), is not a subject of this appeal.
2 ICWA Inquiry” (CFS 030) forms denying any Indian ancestry. The court found a prima
face case for detention, ordered parents to complete the Judicial Council Forms, form
ICWA-020, detained and removed the children from parents, and ordered supervised
visitation.
B. Jurisdiction/Disposition Reports and Hearing.
The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed August 21, 2023, notes the children were
placed with the paternal grandmother and ICWA does not apply. The social worker
spoke with both parents on August 1, and they denied Indian ancestry. The paternal
grandmother indicated her father “might have Native American ancestry”; however, the
paternal great-grandfather, along with the paternal great-grandmother, denied Native
American ancestry. The report states CFS will continue to ask relatives.
At the contested hearing on October 24, 2023, county counsel stated, “ICWA does
not apply at this time, and it is correct.” The juvenile court acknowledged counsel’s
statement and found that ICWA does not apply as to B.B. and S.B. The court sustained
the allegations that mother uses substances, including methamphetamines, that father
knew or should have known of her use, and that her use affects her ability to care for the
children, declared the children dependents of the court, maintained their placement with
the paternal grandmother, and ordered family reunification services and supervised
3 C. Six Month Review Report and Hearing.
By April 2024, CFS recommended termination of reunification services and the
setting of a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of adoption with the
children’s relative caregivers. The status review report notes mother reported her support
network includes the maternal aunts, maternal grandparents, and father’s family. Mother
denied having Indian ancestry on August 1 and 16, 2023, and February 7, 2024. Father,
paternal grandmother, paternal great-grandparents, and paternal great-aunt all denied
Indian ancestry. On April 24, the juvenile court granted county counsel’s request and
found that ICWA does not apply. At the contested six-month review hearing on
June 11, 2024, the court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
D. Section 366.26 Report and Hearing.
In its section 366.26 report filed September 13, 2024, CFS maintained its prior
recommendations. As of August 2024, mother and the paternal relatives continued to
deny Indian ancestry. Additionally, the social worker asked the maternal grandparents
(D.D. and P.B.) and brother-in-law (C.) on August 26 about Indian ancestry, but all
denied having any. At the hearing on October 1, the juvenile court, again, found that
ICWA does not apply, terminated all parental rights to B.B. and S.B. (over parents’
objections), and selected adoption as the permanent plan.
II. ANALYSIS
Mother argues CFS and the juvenile court failed to satisfy their duty of “initial
inquiry” as to the children’s maternal Native American ancestry, and in light of such
4 violation, the case should be conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions to
conduct an appropriate investigation regarding Indian heritage. CFS argues that it
satisfied its duty of inquiry because its investigation included the maternal grandparents
who denied Indian ancestry, and there was no evidence to reasonably conclude the
maternal aunts could assist CFS in its investigation of Indian ancestry. We agree with
CFS.
“Fulfilling the notification duty requires sufficient inquiry into the child’s Native
heritage. ‘The court, county welfare department, and the probation department have an
affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . [facing a dependency or
delinquency proceeding] is or may be an Indian child.’ [Citations.] California’s statutory
scheme imposes a duty of initial inquiry on both the department and the court. The
department’s duty arises when a report of abuse or neglect is made and/or when the
county takes the child into its temporary custody. [Citation.] The inquiry ‘includes, but
is not limited to, asking the 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 and where the child, the
parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled.’ [Citation.] Then, on the first appearance upon
a petition, ‘the court shall ask each participant present in the hearing whether the
participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child.’ [Citations.]”
(In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1099, fns.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 3/11/25 In re S.B. CA4/2 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 TWO
In re S.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E084768
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J298021 & J298022) v. OPINION M.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,
Judge. Affirmed.
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Landon Villavaso, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 In this appeal, defendant and appellant M.B. (mother) contends plaintiff and
respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) and the juvenile
court failed to satisfy the duty of initial inquiry regarding the maternal extended family
members, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901
et seq.) and Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 224.2, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).
We disagree and affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A. Referral, Petition, and Detention.
Mother and Z.B. (father) are the parents of B.B. (born 2020) and S.B. (born
2023).2 On July 28, 2023, CFS received a referral alleging S.B. tested positive for
amphetamine at the time of birth. Mother admitted to using while pregnant, and she has a
prior child welfare history regarding her substance abuse. CFS obtained a detention
warrant, removed the children from parents’ custody, and filed a petition alleging the
children were at substantial risk of harm as described in section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
mother and father have a history of substance abuse, and both knew or should have
known of each other’s substance abuse history.
At the detention hearing on August 4, 2023, the juvenile court made ICWA
inquiries of mother, father, and paternal grandparents; all denied Indian ancestry. The
paternal grandparents and great-grandmother filled out “RELATIVE: Family Finding and
1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Mother’s oldest child, R.S. (born 2016), is not a subject of this appeal.
2 ICWA Inquiry” (CFS 030) forms denying any Indian ancestry. The court found a prima
face case for detention, ordered parents to complete the Judicial Council Forms, form
ICWA-020, detained and removed the children from parents, and ordered supervised
visitation.
B. Jurisdiction/Disposition Reports and Hearing.
The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed August 21, 2023, notes the children were
placed with the paternal grandmother and ICWA does not apply. The social worker
spoke with both parents on August 1, and they denied Indian ancestry. The paternal
grandmother indicated her father “might have Native American ancestry”; however, the
paternal great-grandfather, along with the paternal great-grandmother, denied Native
American ancestry. The report states CFS will continue to ask relatives.
At the contested hearing on October 24, 2023, county counsel stated, “ICWA does
not apply at this time, and it is correct.” The juvenile court acknowledged counsel’s
statement and found that ICWA does not apply as to B.B. and S.B. The court sustained
the allegations that mother uses substances, including methamphetamines, that father
knew or should have known of her use, and that her use affects her ability to care for the
children, declared the children dependents of the court, maintained their placement with
the paternal grandmother, and ordered family reunification services and supervised
3 C. Six Month Review Report and Hearing.
By April 2024, CFS recommended termination of reunification services and the
setting of a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of adoption with the
children’s relative caregivers. The status review report notes mother reported her support
network includes the maternal aunts, maternal grandparents, and father’s family. Mother
denied having Indian ancestry on August 1 and 16, 2023, and February 7, 2024. Father,
paternal grandmother, paternal great-grandparents, and paternal great-aunt all denied
Indian ancestry. On April 24, the juvenile court granted county counsel’s request and
found that ICWA does not apply. At the contested six-month review hearing on
June 11, 2024, the court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
D. Section 366.26 Report and Hearing.
In its section 366.26 report filed September 13, 2024, CFS maintained its prior
recommendations. As of August 2024, mother and the paternal relatives continued to
deny Indian ancestry. Additionally, the social worker asked the maternal grandparents
(D.D. and P.B.) and brother-in-law (C.) on August 26 about Indian ancestry, but all
denied having any. At the hearing on October 1, the juvenile court, again, found that
ICWA does not apply, terminated all parental rights to B.B. and S.B. (over parents’
objections), and selected adoption as the permanent plan.
II. ANALYSIS
Mother argues CFS and the juvenile court failed to satisfy their duty of “initial
inquiry” as to the children’s maternal Native American ancestry, and in light of such
4 violation, the case should be conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions to
conduct an appropriate investigation regarding Indian heritage. CFS argues that it
satisfied its duty of inquiry because its investigation included the maternal grandparents
who denied Indian ancestry, and there was no evidence to reasonably conclude the
maternal aunts could assist CFS in its investigation of Indian ancestry. We agree with
CFS.
“Fulfilling the notification duty requires sufficient inquiry into the child’s Native
heritage. ‘The court, county welfare department, and the probation department have an
affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . [facing a dependency or
delinquency proceeding] is or may be an Indian child.’ [Citations.] California’s statutory
scheme imposes a duty of initial inquiry on both the department and the court. The
department’s duty arises when a report of abuse or neglect is made and/or when the
county takes the child into its temporary custody. [Citation.] The inquiry ‘includes, but
is not limited to, asking the 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 and where the child, the
parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled.’ [Citation.] Then, on the first appearance upon
a petition, ‘the court shall ask each participant present in the hearing whether the
participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child.’ [Citations.]”
(In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1099, fns. omitted.)
5 When conducting an inquiry investigation, the operative concept is to inquire of
those people who are reasonably available to assist the department with its investigation
into whether the child has any potential Indian ancestry. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th
1112, 1140 (Dezi C.).) A reasonable inquiry and adequate ICWA investigation do not
require an inquiry of every possible extended family in every case. (Dezi C. at p. 1140.)
“[T]he juvenile court’s fact-specific determination that an inquiry is adequate, proper,
and duly diligent is ‘a quintessentially discretionary function’ [citation] subject to a
deferential standard of review. [Citations.] ‘“On a well-developed record, the court has
relatively broad discretion to determine whether the agency’s inquiry was proper,
adequate, and duly diligent on the specific facts of the case. However, the less developed
the record, the more limited that discretion necessarily becomes.”’” (Id. at p. 1141.)
Here, mother faults CFS and the juvenile court for not requesting the maternal
aunts’ contact information to “conduct the required inquiry with these extended family
members.” However, there was no evidence to reasonably conclude the maternal aunts
could assist CFS in its investigation of Indian ancestry since the maternal grandparents
confirmed there was no maternal Native American family history. Moreover, no one
provided any additional information concerning other maternal relatives, including the
maternal aunts, who could offer further information on Indian ancestry. While mother
identified the maternal aunts as part of her support network, there is no evidence to
suggest they were reasonably available to CFS for inquiry or had information that would
shed light on the children’s potential Native heritage.
6 On this record, we conclude the ICWA inquiry was proper, adequate, and duly
diligent under Dezi C. (In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 711, 720 [inquiry “‘has reliably
answered the question at the heart of the ICWA inquiry: Whether a child involved in a
proceeding “is or may be an Indian child”’”].) The juvenile court’s findings that CFS’s
inquiry was adequate and proper were based on a well-developed record, which shows
that its ICWA investigation included an extensive inquiry of the children’s maternal and
paternal relatives. Both CFS and the court made inquiries of mother, the maternal
grandparents, father, father’s brother-in-law, the paternal grandparents, and the paternal
great-grandparents. At the conclusion of this investigation, neither the parents nor the
extended family members provided any information that would give the juvenile court
“reason to know” or even “reason to believe” the children were Indian children.
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding B.B. and S.B. were not
Indian children as defined by ICWA and corresponding California law. (Dezi C., supra,
16 Cal.5th at p. 1141.)
III. CONCLUSION
The order terminating parental rights to B.B. and S.B. is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J. RAPHAEL J.