Below is a synopsis of a notable I.C.W.A. case from the month of February.
In re H.V.,(2022) __ Cal. App__.
Opinion filed 2022.2.18| Los Angeles County
Why it matters: Mother appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition findings that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to comply with ICWA inquiry requirements. The Department argued that since Mother asserted there was no known Indian ancestry, the Department was under no obligation to interview the known relatives, maternal great-grandparents, regarding the child’s possible Indian ancestry. The appellate court reviewed the case using substantial evidence standard and found that the Department failed to comply with ICWA because they did not interview the extended relatives. The appellate court remanded the matter to juvenile court with instructions.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Baker contends that the majority’s decision creates unpredictability for the Department, specifically because the Department has no way to reliably know how many extended family members to interview to discharge their duty of inquiry. Justice Baker asserts that the substantial evidence review standard should be deferential to the juvenile court’s findings and he believes there is sufficient evidence to show that the Department’s inquiry was proper. Finally, in a footnote, Justice Baker states that such delays and unpredictability created ICWA-related statutes and the majority’s decision will cause undue delays in achieving permanency for children.
