In re Samantha F.

Figuring out where the California Court of Appeal courts are on the initial inquiry duty when a child is removed from their home is about as easy as detangling a ball of Christmas lights. The Samantha F. case does a nice job of going through where everything is, and what courts have held. This issue is fairly specific to California, which has certain ICWA inquiry requirements in state law and court rules for the removal of any child from their home.  The question at issue seems particularly frustrating, because certain California courts have held there is no duty for contacting a child’s extended family re. tribal citizenship if the child was removed from the home with a warrant. However, there is such a duty if they were removed from the home without a warrant. In reading the cases, it feels like there was an oversight in drafting the state laws rather than some kind of legislative intent to suss out. Regardless, this has been the top litigated issue in California ICWA cases for almost a year now.  In fact, it was nearly a year ago I posted about this at length.  Apparently  filing is finally underway in the In re Ja. O. case now.  Briefing in the other set of cases appears to be complete but oral argument has not yet been set.