Filed 8/31/26 In re J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 J.B., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
E088034
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J301780)
v.
OPINION
O.D. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace,
Judge. Conditionally reversed.
Kristen L. Sellers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant O.D.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant S.B.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
This is an appeal taken by parents S.B. (father) and O.D. (mother) from an order
of the San Bernardino County juvenile court made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights as to their child J.B. (the child).1
We will conditionally reverse the orders for compliance with California’s inquiry and
notice provisions designed to implement and enhance the Federal Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.), sometimes referred to herein as Cal-
ICWA.
BACKGROUND
The sole issue on appeal is whether respondent San Bernardino County Children
and Family Services (the Department) complied with its duty of inquiry imposed by the
Cal-ICWA provisions. Accordingly, we need not set forth a detailed recital of the history
of the proceedings leading to termination of parents’ rights to the child.
Suffice to say, when the child was born in August 2024, her parents were receiving
family reunification services in cases involving other of their children and, following an
investigation, the Department filed a section 300 juvenile dependency petition on her
behalf. The petition included an Indian child inquiry attachment averring the
Department’s social worker had asked the parents about the child’s Indian status and their
response gave the worker no reason to believe the child is or may be an Indian child.
At the August 19, 2024 detention hearing, each of the parents responded in the
negative to the court’s inquiry whether the child has Indian heritage, and each parent also
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise designated. References to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
2
filed a Judicial Council form (ICWA-020) stating that they did not, or might not, have
Indian ancestry.
The juvenile court sustained the petition and adjudged the child a dependent of the
court and ordered family reunification services for father at the hearing on jurisdiction
and disposition of the section 300 petition. Family maintenance services were ordered
for mother.
In September 2025, the Department filed a section 387 supplemental petition for a
more restrictive placement. In October 2025, the petition was sustained, the child was
removed from mother’s care, and reunification services were bypassed as authorized by
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10).2 The juvenile court set a section 366.26 permanent
plan selection hearing for February 11, 2026, and ordered an ICWA notice review in
December 2025.
The December 2025 notice review was continued until January 15, 2026, because
the Department stated no inquiry concerning whether the child might have Indian
ancestry had yet been made of the child’s extended family members, which is required by
subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) of section 224.2 and rule 5.481(a)(1). On January 15, 2026,
the ICWA review was continued to February 11, 2026, the day of the permanent plan
2 Subdivision (b)(10)(A) of section 361.5 provides in pertinent part that services
need not be provided to a parent if there is clear and convincing evidence that the court
ordered termination of reunification services because the parent failed to reunify with
siblings after they been removed pursuant to section 361 (which provides for limitations
on parental control over a minor who has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court
pursuant to § 300) and, according to the findings of the court, the parent had not
subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the
siblings.
3
selection hearing, to permit the Department “to complete ICWA notice to relatives.”
The Department’s addendum report filed the day before the permanent plan
selection hearing showed ICWA inquiry of extended family members did not begin until
January 23, 2026—just 19 days before hearing.
A paternal aunt contacted by the Department on January 23, 2026, reported the
child’s paternal great-grandmother was Cherokee and provided the dates and places of the
great-grandmother’s birth and death as well as the date and place of her marriage. On
February 6, 2026, the Department sent certified letters to three Cherokee tribes (The
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, and the Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians) and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) containing identifying
information about the child, the parents, and the information about the paternal great-
grandmother received from the paternal aunt.
At the section 366.26 permanent plan selection hearing held on February 11, 2026,
five days after the Department had mailed the letters to three of the Cherokee tribes, the
juvenile court found ICWA inapplicable and terminated parental rights as to the child.
Mother and father appealed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the parents argue, and the Department concedes, that conditional
reversal of the order terminating parental rights is called for because it was made before
giving sufficient opportunity to the Cherokee tribes to respond to the Department’s letters
regarding the child’s Indian ancestry. We agree.
4
A. The Statutory Framework
ICWA was enacted by Congress to protect the best interests of Indian children and
to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families in child custody
proceedings, including juvenile dependency cases. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1902, 1903(1);
25 C.F.R. § 23.106 (2025).) To that end, California law imposes an affirmative and
continuing duty on the court and child services agencies such as the Department to
conduct ICWA inquiries to determine whether a minor for whom a section 300 juvenile
dependency petition has or may be filed is or may be an Indian child, and to provide
information to tribes when there is a reason to believe or a reason to know the minor is or
may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); rule 5.481(a); In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th
1112, 1131–1133 (Dezi C.).)
As noted ante, the Department’s duty of inquiry includes asking extended family
members if the minor has or may have Indian ancestry. (§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b)(1); rule
5.481(a)(1).) As relevant here, if the inquiry results in a reason to believe the minor is an
Indian child, the Department must contact the tribe or tribes that may reasonably be
expected to have information regarding the minor’s membership, citizenship status, or
eligibility. (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(C).) The further inquiry must be made as soon as
practicable and methods of contact with the tribes must include, at minimum, telephone,
facsimile, or electronic mail to each tribe’s chairperson or designated agent for receipt of
notices under ICWA, and the Department must provide information identified by the
tribes as necessary to make a membership or citizenship eligibility determination as well
as information on the current status of the minor and the case. (Ibid.)
5
B. The Standard of Review
When the juvenile court has a well-developed record, it is afforded relatively
broad discretion in making the fact-specific determination that the child services agency
complied with the Cal-ICWA requirements. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141.) We
will uphold the court’s finding that ICWA does not apply so long as the court’s
conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence and documentation in the record as
required by California law. (Ibid.)
If, however, a record is not well developed because inquiry was not properly
undertaken and reported as required, then the juvenile court’s discretion necessarily
becomes more limited. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1141, 1151.) In those cases,
conditional reversal is required because, until the Department gathers, shares, and
documents the information required by Cal-ICWA, it is not possible to know what
information a properly conducted inquiry might reveal. (Id. at pp. 1136, 1152.)
C. The ICWA Incomplete Inquiry in This Case Was Inadequate
Here, the paternal aunt’s information that the paternal grandmother was Cherokee
provided the Department with a reason to believe the child is or may be a child coming
within ICWA. (See In re N.D. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 620, 622, 624 [father represented
he had Native American heritage and provided ancestry information, but was not able to
identify the correct tribe].) The Department did undertake to provide to the Cherokee
tribes information about the child, her parents, and her paternal great-grandmother who
was identified as Cherokee, but it did so by mailing letters to the tribes by certified mail
only five days before the section 366.26 permanent plan selection hearing. The certified
6
mailings were not addressed to the tribal chairperson or designated agent, and did not
require a signature or return receipt.
At the hearing, the juvenile court noted it had received “an extensive addendum”
that day, which the Department’s counsel represented established that the Department
“has reached out, or at least attempted to reach out, to numerous outstanding relatives that
were named in the report,” which counsel represented “satisfied [the Department’s] duty
of inquiry.” No mention was made of the paternal aunt’s information concerning the
great-grandmother’s Cherokee heritage or of the letters sent to the three Cherokee tribes
five days earlier. Nor is there any indication in the record that any of those tribes had
received the letters or responded to them.
On appeal, the parties correctly note there is no provision in ICWA or Cal-ICWA
that specifies a timeframe within which the tribes must respond to an inquiry made to
determine if there is reason to know the child is an Indian child or how long the juvenile
court must wait for a response before making a finding whether ICWA applies to the
proceedings. That may be due in part to the language in subdivision (e)(2)(C) of section
224.2 specifying “at minimum” use of the telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail to
contact the tribes’ chairperson or designated agent for receipt of ICWA notices and
provide information necessary for the tribes to make a membership or citizenship status
eligibility, which suggests that sharing information with tribes that give rise to a reason to
believe a child may come within ICWA should be done quickly by simple but reliable
means.
We agree with the parties that five days is not a sufficient amount of time for a
7
tribe to receive letters sent from California by certified mail to distant states (Oklahoma
and North Carolina), to review the letter’s contents, research the information they
contain, and respond to the Department. We note, too, there can be no confidence that the
each of the letters has reached the intended tribe at all much less the tribal chairperson (or
the agent designated by the tribe for receipt of notices) because the correspondence was
not addressed to the chairperson or a designated agent and it was sent without a request
for a signature and return receipt.3
In view of lack of compliance with ICWA inquiry requirements, conditional
reversal is necessary. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1136, 1152.)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating the parental rights of mother and father as to the child is
conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to
reappoint counsel for the parents and to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of
ICWA, sections 224.2 and 224.3, and rule 5.481.
If each of the tribes determine the child is not a member or a citizen of, or eligible
for membership or citizenship in, that tribe after the tribes have been provided the
information concerning the child, her parents, great-grandmother, and the current status
3 Section 224.2, subdivision (e)(2)(C) and rule 5.481(c)(4) provide that notice to a
tribe must be sent to the trial chairperson unless the tribe has designated another agent for
service. Designated agents for Indian tribes entitled to notice may designate an agent for
service of notice other than the tribal chairman and must send a copy of the designation to
the Secretary of the Interior or that person’s designee, who shall update and publish the
names and addresses of the designated agents in the Federal Register. (25 C.F.R.
§ 23.12.)
8
of the child as well as any other information the Department has obtained concerning the
child’s status as an Indian child, then the juvenile court must immediately reinstate the
order terminating parental rights.
If, however, any tribe or the BIA determines the child is an Indian child, the
juvenile court must conduct a new section 366.26 permanent plan selection hearing in
accordance with ICWA and California’s applicable ICWA-implementing statutes and
rules.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
9