Filed 10/20/26 In re Sabrina J. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
In re SABRINA J., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,
G066965
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24DP1296)
v.
OPINION
F.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
June Jee An, Judge. Affirmed.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Deborah B.
Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
F.D. (the mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating
parental rights as to her daughter, Sabrina J., in this dependency matter.
The mother’s sole argument is that the court improperly concluded that the
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) does not apply to this case. The mother and
the maternal grandparents were born in Kenya, and the father was
unknown. The mother contends sufficient efforts were not made to inquire of
the maternal grandfather as required by the California version of ICWA (Cal-
ICWA). We conclude the efforts made by the Orange County Social Services
Agency (SSA) were adequate. Accordingly, the court’s order terminating
parental rights is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background
We provide only an abbreviated summary of the facts due to the
limited nature of this appeal.
Sabrina was born on October 2024. The child was diagnosed with
respiratory distress and neonatal encephalopathy. Shortly thereafter, the
mother was placed on a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 5150 hold
after stating she wanted to kill her child. SSA filed a petition pursuant to
section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The father was reported as unknown.
The child was detained, and the case began the normal process of wending its
way through dependency court. As of the six-month review, SSA described
the mother’s compliance with the case plan as “minimal” and recommended
termination of services and proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing. After
numerous continuances and delays, a contested section 366.26 hearing
1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
proceeded without the mother’s presence. The court made all required
findings and terminated parental rights with a permanent plan of adoption.
B. ICWA Inquiry
Around the time of detention, on October 21, 2024, the mother
denied Native American heritage. The detention hearing was held on October
23. The mother filed a declaration on the ICWA-020 form, stating she and her
ancestors were not members of any federally recognized tribe and were not
eligible for membership. During the hearing, the court inquired of the mother
about Native American heritage, which the mother denied. Social services
was ordered to continue to make further inquiry, and the mother was ordered
to provide SSA with contact information for any relatives who might know of
possible Native American heritage.
On October 21, 2024, the aunt2 told SSA she did not have any
Native American heritage, and stated there were no known relatives with
Native American heritage. She denied any Native American ancestry again
on June 4, 2025.
On October 30, 2024, during a phone call with the social worker,
the mother again denied Native American heritage. The mother stated that
she had been born in Kenya and came to the United States when she was six
or seven years old. Repeated inquires were made of the mother in January,
March, April, and May 2025. All resulted in the mother denying Native
American heritage.
On December 19, 2024, the court ordered SSA to make an ICWA
inquiry of the grandparents. SSA inquired of the grandmother twice, in May
and June 2025. The grandmother denied Native American ancestry on both
2 All references to relatives in this opinion are maternal relatives.
3
occasions. The social worker attempted to contact the grandfather by
telephone in June 2025, but did not succeed in reaching him. The social
worker received no other information about relatives to contact with regard
to ICWA.
In a motion to place Sabrina with her grandparents, the mother
described Sabrina as “a first generation American-born child of a
Kenyan/Somali immigrant family, within which Somali and Kenyan culture
is deeply ingrained.”
On August 12, 2025, the court found that ICWA did not apply.
DISCUSSION
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the juvenile court’s findings regarding ICWA under
the substantial evidence standard. “[W]here the facts are undisputed, we
independently determine whether ICWA’s requirements have been satisfied.”
(In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1051.)
II.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
“In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA;
25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) to ‘formalize[] federal policy relating to the
placement of Indian children outside the family home.’ [Citation.] Under
ICWA’s state analogue . . . (Cal-ICWA; . . .), courts and child welfare agencies
are charged with ‘an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a
child . . . is or may be an Indian child’ in dependency cases. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 224.2, subd. (a).) Child welfare agencies discharge this state law duty
by ‘asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended
family members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party
4
reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian
child and where the child, the parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled.’” (In
re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1124–1125 (Dezi C.).) Among other things,
ICWA provides for notice of dependency proceedings to a Native American
child’s tribe and gives the tribe the right to intervene in the case. (25 U.S.C.
§ 1912(a); § 224.1.)
“In 2016, new federal regulations were adopted addressing ICWA
compliance. [Citation.] The regulations are binding on state courts, are
intended to ‘improve ICWA implementation,’ and clearly identify what
actions state courts and agencies must undertake to ensure ICWA
implementation in child welfare proceedings.” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at
p. 1130.) As a result of the new federal regulations, “California made
conforming amendments to Cal-ICWA, including portions of the Welfare and
Institutions Code related to ICWA inquiry and notice requirements.” (Id. at
p. 1131.) These amendments “‘revise[d] the specific steps a social worker,
probation officer, or court is required to take in making an inquiry of a child’s
possible status as an Indian child.’ [Citation.] As a result of this amendment,
‘“agencies now have a broader duty of inquiry and a duty of documentation.”’”
(Ibid.)
“Section 224.2 codifies and expands on ICWA’s duty of inquiry to
determine whether a child is an Indian child. Agencies and juvenile courts
have ‘an affirmative and continuing duty’ in every dependency proceeding to
determine whether ICWA applies by inquiring whether a child is or may
be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) This ‘duty to inquire begins with the
initial contact, including, but not limited to, asking the party reporting child
abuse or neglect whether the party has any information that the child may be
an Indian child.’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1131–1132, fn. omitted.)
5
“Section 224.2, subdivision (b) specifies that once a child is placed into the
temporary custody of a county welfare department, the duty to inquire
‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian,
Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in
the child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is,
or may be, an Indian child.’” (Id. at p. 1132.) “When the agency has ‘reason to
believe’ that an Indian child is involved, further inquiry regarding the
possible Indian status of the child is required.” (Ibid.)
III.
SSA AND THE COURT FULFILLED THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER ICWA
The mother contends SSA and the court failed to discharge the
duty of initial inquiry as to the grandfather.
SSA asked the mother on numerous occasions about Native
American ancestry. She answered no each time, including on the ICWA-020
form. SSA also inquired of the grandmother and the aunt, and their
responses were uniform: there was no Native American ancestry in the
family.
Indeed, the mother herself provided information that she had
been born in Kenya and immigrated to the United States at a young age.
Kenyan/Somali was referred to as the child’s “native/biological heritage.” The
grandparents appeared in court with the assistance of a Somali interpreter.
Neither the mother, the aunt, nor the grandmother provided even the
slightest hint of information that could possibly suggest that the African-born
grandfather had Native American ancestry.
While the grandfather was not an inaccessible relative, there is
nothing about the inquiry conducted by SSA that gives us a moment’s pause
to believe that an interview with him would have resulted in new or different
6
information. This was an immigrant family from Africa, as the mother herself
repeatedly stated. There was no chance that an interview with one more
relative would have changed that underlying fact.
In In re Bella L. (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1284, the parents
contended that social services had failed to comply with ICWA because it
failed to ask the paternal grandfather whether he did or might have Native
American heritage. (Id. at p. 1289.) The court disagreed, finding that
inquiries had been made of numerous other family members, all of whom
denied Native American heritage. (Id. at p. 1290.) “Although the Department
did not inquire of paternal grandfather, despite interviewing him on other
topics during these proceedings, this failure does not render the
Department’s otherwise diligent and well-documented efforts unreliable or
the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply unworthy of our
deference.” (Ibid.)
Here, admittedly, SSA did not follow up with the grandfather as
it could have. He was accessible and appeared at numerous hearings. But, as
the Bella L. court held, this does not render the rest of SSA’s diligent inquires
or the court’s findings improper. (In re Bella L., supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at p.
1290.) SSA’s inquires and the facts stated by the mother incontrovertibly
established no Native American heritage was present in this case.
We find SSA’s investigation of ICWA’s applicability in this case
was reasonable, and the court’s findings were supported by the evidence.
Accordingly, there was no error in the court’s conclusion that ICWA did not
apply.
7
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is
affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
SERVINO, J.
MACAULAY, J.
8