inquiry – Page 3 – Turtle Talk

The court found that the agency has to ask about tribal citizenship each time a the agency initiates proceedings against a parent, and not rely on findings in a separate, previous proceeding.

Moreover, while not applicable here, we note that new federal regulations that codify this inquiry obligation became effective on December 12, 2016. See 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.107-.109, .111 (2016). The new regulations were quickly followed by new guidelines issued in December 2016. See Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guidelines for Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (Dec. 2016),https://perma.cc/3TCH-8HQM (2016 Guidelines). Consistent with the 2015 Guidelines applicable here, these new regulations and guidelines require the court to ask all participants in the case whether there is reason to know the child is an Indian child and to instruct the participants to inform the court if they later discover information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child. See 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a); 2016 Guidelines at 11. And, if a new child custody proceeding is initiated for the same child, the court must again inquire into whether there is a reason to know that the child is an Indian child. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a).

Published Decision out of the California Court of Appeals (ICWA Inquiry)

August 17, 2016Kate Fort

Here

The father ultimately dropped his appeal of the ICWA inquiry, but the court’s comment is worth noting:

To be sure, the juvenile court’s analysis whether the evidence is sufficient to trigger ICWA’s notice requirements for Andrew and Kailey will be enhanced if additional information concerning Jonathan’s Indian ancestry is presented to the court. But the burden of developing that information is not properly placed on Jonathan alone. Section 224.3, subdivision (a), imposes on child protection agencies, as well as the juvenile court, the affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a dependent child is or may be an Indian child. (See In re Kadence P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1386; In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115, 121; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) As soon as practicable, the social worker is required to interview the child’s parents, extended family members, the Indian custodian, if any, and any other person who can reasonably be expected to have information concerning the child’s membership status or eligibility. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); In re Shane G. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1539; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4).) From the record presented to us, it appears the Department and the juvenile court failed to satisfy that duty; neither the court nor the Department made any effort to develop additional information that might substantiate Jonathan’s belief he may have Indian ancestry by contacting his siblings or other extended family members. Both federal and state law require more than has been done to date. On remand, an adequate investigation by the Department with a full report to the court must be promptly completed.

Unpublished California ICWA Inquiry Case Requires Reversal of Orders

May 18, 2015May 18, 2015Kate Fort

Here. Out of Ventura County.

Although mother and the maternal grandmother advised HSA of Olivia’s Choctaw ancestry, no further inquiry was made. Had HSA asked, it would have learned that the maternal great-grandmother, Roberta Mae J., is alive, is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation, and was born on the Kiowa Reservation in Lawton, Oklahoma.

***

After the writ petition was filed, mother’s counsel submitted certificates and enrollment applications to the Choctaw Nation tribe. On May 5, 2015, we granted mother’s request to take additional evidence that Choctaw Nation issued membership cards to mother and Olivia on April 15, 2015. The tribe’s determination that Olivia is a member of Choctaw Nation is conclusive. (§ 224.3, subd. (e)(1); In re Jack C.III (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 967, 980; Dwayne P. v. Superior Court (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 247, 255.) HSA’s failure to comply with the ICWA notice requirements before the six month review hearing requires that we reverse the February 2, 2015 order terminating reunification services, the order granting Olivia’s caretakers de facto parent status, and the order for a section 366.26 hearing.