Filed 6/30/26 In re J.J. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re J.J., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BUREAU OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
A174588
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J25-00014)
T.J. et al.,
Defendants and
Appellants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
T.J. (father) and P.J. (mother) appeal from the juvenile
court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders regarding their
child J.J. (minor), whom they adopted after earlier dependency
proceedings involving minor’s biological parents. Father and
mother contend the Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and
Family Services (Bureau) and the juvenile court failed to comply
1 We provide a limited factual summary and resolve this
case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
1
with the duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act
(25 U.S.C. §1901 et seq. (ICWA)), and California’s implementing
statutes. The Bureau concedes the record does not contain
documentation of its contacts with minor’s adoptive relatives or
its efforts to obtain contact information for his known biological
relatives. The Bureau does not oppose a remand for it to
demonstrate compliance with ICWA’s inquiry requirements. We
accept the Bureau’s concession and will reverse the court’s order
finding that ICWA does not apply.
Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 224.2 states that
courts and county welfare departments “have an affirmative and
continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition
under Section 300, 601, or 602 may be or has been filed, is or may
be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) This duty to inquire
begins when a county is first contacted regarding a child and
extends to when a child is placed in temporary custody of a
county welfare department and the first hearing on a petition in
a proceeding that could result in a child being placed with
someone other than a parent or Indian custodian. (Id.,
subds. (b)–(c).) Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking a
child’s extended family members whether the child is or may be
an Indian child. (Id., subd. (b)(1)–(2).)
“If there is reason to know” a child involved in a proceeding
is an Indian child, “the party seeking foster care placement with
someone other than a parent or Indian custodian shall provide
2 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
notice in accordance with [s]ection 224.3.” (§ 224.2, subd. (f).)
There is reason to know a child is an Indian child if, among other
things, a person having an interest in the child informs the court
that the child is an Indian child. (Id., subd. (d)(1).)
When a court or social worker has “reason to believe” a
child is an Indian child but cannot determine there is reason to
know the child is an Indian child, the court or social worker must
make “further inquiry.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) A court or social
worker has reason to believe a child is an Indian child when
information suggests the child or his or her parent is a member
or citizen or may be eligible for membership or citizenship in an
Indian tribe. (Id., subd. (e)(1).) “Further inquiry” includes, but is
not limited to, interviewing extended family members, contacting
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the State Department of
Social Services for assistance in identifying the names and
contact information of relevant tribes, and contacting tribes “that
may reasonably be expected to have information regarding the
child’s membership, citizenship status, or eligibility.” (Id.,
subd. (e)(2)(A)–(C).)
If there is reason to know a child is an Indian child but the
evidence is not sufficient to determine conclusively whether the
child is or is not an Indian child, the court must document that
due diligence was used to identify and work with the relevant
tribes to verify the child’s status or eligibility. (§ 224.2, subd. (g).)
“If the court makes a finding that proper and adequate further
inquiry and due diligence as required in this section have been
conducted and there is no reason to know whether the child is an
3
Indian child, the court may make a finding that” ICWA does not
apply. (Id., subd. (i)(2).)
“The juvenile court’s factual finding that ICWA does not
apply is ‘subject to reversal based on sufficiency of the evidence.’ ”
(In re Dezi C. (2004) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1134.) An inadequate
ICWA inquiry “requires conditional reversal of the juvenile
court’s order terminating parental rights with directions to the
agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record
documentation.” (Id. at p. 1125.) However, “ICWA inquiry and
notice errors do not warrant reversal of the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional or dispositional findings and orders other than the
ICWA finding itself.” (In re Dominick D. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th
560, 568.)
In this case, minor was adopted by mother and father in
2013 after dependency proceedings involving minor’s birth
parents in Solano County. At the detention hearing on January
8, 2025, the juvenile court asked father and mother about
possible Indian ancestry, and ordered both parents to inform the
juvenile court if they received any information indicating J.J. was
a member of or eligible for membership with a tribe. The court
found there was no reason to be believe J.J. was an Indian child
and that ICWA did not apply.
At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing set
for July 24, 2025, the court found that exceptional circumstances
justified continuing the matter to August 14, 2025, as minor had
had a “confrontation” with the social worker charged with
preparing the pre-hearing report that “resulted in [the social
4
worker] being out of work for some time.” During the July 24
hearing, the court made no mention of ICWA.
In its order after the combined hearing held on August 14,
2025, the juvenile court found there was no reason to believe that
ICWA applied and found that ICWA did not apply. The court
ordered reunification services for both parents.
Father argues that the Bureau made no effort to inquire of
minor’s biological parents despite the dependency case with the
biological parents in 2011 and 2012. He further argues that the
Bureau failed to conduct ICWA inquiries with minor’s available
extended family members, and that the juvenile court failed to
ensure that the Bureau conducted an adequate inquiry. Mother
argues the same.
The Bureau concedes the record does not show that it
discharged its ICWA duty of inquiry, and there is no indication
the Bureau contacted anyone other than mother and father to
ask about possible Indian ancestry. Upon our review of the
record, we agree that the ICWA inquiry was inadequate.
Accordingly, we vacate the order finding that ICWA does
not apply, but we otherwise affirm the juvenile court’s orders,
and direct the court on remand to order the Bureau to comply
with its inquiry and (if applicable) notice obligations under ICWA
and related California law. (In re Dominick D., supra,
82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 567–568 [remanding for additional ICWA
proceedings but otherwise affirming the court’s dispositional
order].)
5
DISPOSITION
The finding that ICWA does not apply is vacated. The
juvenile court is directed to order the Bureau to comply with its
inquiry and, if applicable, notice obligations under ICWA and
related California law. In all other respects, the juvenile court’s
findings and orders are affirmed.
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STREETER, J.
GOLDMAN, J.
In re J.J. (A174588)
6