Filed 11/4/26 In re D.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.V., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
E088642
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2400156)
Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION
v.
L.V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.
Conditionally reversed.
1
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Larisa R-McKenna, Deputy County Counsel
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant L.V. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental
rights to his daughter. His only argument is that plaintiff and respondent Riverside
County Department of Public Social Services (department) failed to conduct an adequate
inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).
The department concedes its ICWA inquiry was inadequate. We conditionally reverse to
1
allow the department to conduct a proper ICWA inquiry.
FACTS
Father’s daughter D.V. (born 2010) is one of three subjects of this dependency, but
her two younger half-siblings have different fathers and are not at issue in this appeal.
The department filed dependency petitions for the children in May 2024.
Father was intermittently incarcerated during the dependency, and he was denied
reunification services per section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). He appeared telephonically,
however, at several hearings, including the jurisdictional hearing, which had been
continued specifically to allow the department time to interview him. After mother’s
1
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. “In
addition, because ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even
though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or indigenous,’ are
preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1,
disapproved on other grounds in In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 (Dezi C.).)
2
reunification efforts were unsuccessful, parental rights as to D.V. were terminated in May
2026.
DISCUSSION
Father argues the department and the juvenile court did not comply with their duty
of inquiry under ICWA. The department concedes there were “inadvertent omissions in
conducting initial inquiry of whether the child is an Indian child,” and does not oppose a
conditional reversal. We agree conditional reversal is appropriate.
The department’s duty of initial inquiry, which applies in every dependency,
includes asking the child’s parents, among others, whether the child is, or may be, an
Indian child. (In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 686; § 224.2, subd. (b).) State law
also requires the juvenile court to ask participants who appear before the court about the
child’s potential Indian status. (§ 224.2, subd. (c).)
The record does not establish that either the department or the juvenile court ever
asked father whether D.V. is or may be an Indian child. Conditional reversal of the order
terminating parental rights as to her is therefore appropriate. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th
at p. 1136.)
DISPOSITION
We conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights to D.V. We remand
the matter to the juvenile court with directions to comply with the inquiry provisions of
ICWA and of section 224.2—and, if applicable, the notice provisions of section 224.3 as
well. If, after completing the inquiry, neither the department nor the court has reason to
3
know that D.V. is an Indian child, then the court shall reinstate the order terminating
parental rights. If the department has reason to know D.V. is an Indian child, the court
shall proceed accordingly.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MENETREZ
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
J.
LEE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
J.
4