In re V.M. CA6

Filed 9/9/26 In re V.M. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re V.M. et al., Persons Coming H053805
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. Nos. 25JD028609,
25JD028610, 25JD028611)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D.W. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order following a joint
jurisdiction and disposition hearing adjudging three Spirit Lake Nation
children—ages 16, 13, and 9—dependent children under Welfare and
Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and removing them from
parental custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1).

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.
The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services
(department) filed this dependency action after mother was arrested for
driving under the influence with one of the children in the car. The children
had relocated with mother to San Jose from North Dakota and were residing
in the home of their step-grandmother. The home lacked running water and
adequate food, and mother had not enrolled the children in school after their
arrival in California. Mother had an extensive history of alcohol abuse, and
the children had previously been removed from her care while in North
Dakota.
After the children’s initial removal from the home, their 14-year-old
sibling left boarding school and began living with mother. He continued
residing with mother while the three children were placed in foster homes.
The children struggled with behavioral and mental health challenges while
in their foster placements (the two older children were hospitalized several
times on psychiatric holds), and, although mother participated in substance
abuse treatment, she struggled to engage fully with the recommended
services and establish safety factors in the home.
At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the department
recommended removal of the children from parental custody, and a qualified
expert witness of the Spirit Lake Nation concurred. The juvenile court found
that returning the children to mother’s care would create a substantial
danger of harm to the children’s physical or emotional safety and ordered
reunification services. The court also found that the department had made
“active efforts” required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25

2
U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes, to prevent the breakup
of the Indian family,2 and that those efforts had been unsuccessful.
On appeal, mother contends there is no substantial evidence to support
the finding that the children were at risk of serious physical or emotional
harm if returned to her, since her other son was allowed to remain at home.
Mother also asserts the department failed to prove that it made active efforts
to provide her with appropriate services to prevent the breakup of the
children’s family.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Preremoval Background
The children Vn. M. (Vn.), Vc. M. (Vc.) and Dr. M. (Dr.) (together, the
children) were ages 15, 12, and 8, respectively when the department initiated
this dependency proceeding. The children’s brother, Da. M. (Da.) was 14
years old at the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother also
had four older children who were adults at the time of these proceedings and
did not live with her.
Prior to California, the children lived in North Dakota on the Spirit
Lake reservation. In 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) removed the
children from their parents for reasons including domestic violence in the
household and substance abuse by both mother and the children’s father.3

2 In accordance with case authority, we use the term “Indian” to reflect

the statutory language of both federal and state law; in so doing, we intend
no disrespect and recognize alternative terms such as “American Indian” and
“Native American.” (See In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1125 (Dezi C.).)
3 The children’s father, Da. M. (father), is listed in the petition but is

not a party to the appeal. The children reported that they have not had
contact with him since 2020. As of the disposition and jurisdiction hearing,

3
In April 2025,4 shortly before coming to California, mother moved the
children from the Spirit Lake reservation to Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. She
moved the children from the reservation (and did not want the Spirit Lake
tribe notified of the children’s detention by the department) because “the
tribe was not helping them.”
B. Dependency Petition and Removal
The family came to the attention of the department on May 3, when
Mountain View police officers arrested mother on suspicion of driving under
the influence after they observed her “speeding and ‘blowing through a red
light’ ” with Vc. in the vehicle. Vc. was not physically harmed but later told
the social worker that she felt very scared, and before the officers stopped
them, mother had hit another vehicle and “panicked and drove off” when the
men in the car asked for repair money. Vc. told police officers that mother
had been drinking and behaving similarly for the past few days, as well as
before they left North Dakota. Police officers released Vc. to the children’s
stepfather, who appeared to “ ‘brush . . . off’ ” the officers’ concern about
creating a safety plan and stated he was unaware that mother had been
drinking when she left with Vc.
The next day, department social workers made an unannounced visit to
the family residence and obtained a court order to interview the children.
The social worker also spoke further with the children the next day at “The
Welcoming Center.”

the department had been unable to locate him. At the July 1, 2025 continued
jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that father was
a presumed parent of the children pursuant to Family Code section 7573. In
its jurisdiction and disposition order, the court made findings as to father
that are not at issue on appeal.
4 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates were in 2025.

4
The children lived with their stepfather, stepgrandmother, and mother
in a two-bedroom home. The children slept in the living room. There was
minimal food, an overflowing trash can, and no running water. The family
used water from a bottle to flush the toilet, but the bottle was empty and the
toilet contained “a pile of human feces.” The social worker observed
numerous bug bites (mosquito or flea) and scratches from itching on the arms
and legs of Vc. and Dr., and black fingernail tips (suggesting they had not
bathed or had their nails trimmed in some time). The children said that they
could not remember when they had showered, and it had been “a while”
because there was no hot water, and no running water for over a week.
Vn. reported that she was not enrolled in school but had attended 9th
grade in North Dakota and had good grades. She told the social worker that
“alcohol is a drink that messes with you and makes you crazy.” Vn. stated
that the day before, mother had taken the children to Walmart but on the
way home said she needed to stop because she wanted to drink and had left
Vn. and her siblings in the car. Mother had returned with two cans of
Twisted Tea lemonade and drank some before getting back into the car. Vn.
and mother had argued about mother’s drinking, and mother agreed to drop
the children at home, but Vc. left again with mother. Vn. reported that
mother has at times left them in the car while she goes to bars, and that
when mother is drunk, Vn. is the one who takes care of her. Vn. was worried
about mother’s drinking and about mother’s mental health and shared that
when they were living in North Dakota, mother had told her she wanted to
die and had tried to hurt herself with a sharp object.
According to Vn., mother drinks when she gets upset with stepfather,
and the two of them argue almost every day. Vn. reported that mother
smokes “ ‘weed’ ” outside in the backyard and that she always has alcohol and

5
marijuana with her in the car. In North Dakota, she and her siblings had
been “ ‘taken away’ ” from their father and put in foster care because he
abused them and mother. Vn. did not believe mother’s drinking would ever
stop. Vn. reported that mother had told her alcohol addiction “ ‘runs deep in
our family.’ ”
Vc. reported that she stayed in the car with mother after mother
dropped Vn. and Dr. at home because Vc. was worried something bad could
happen to mother. Vc. told the social worker that mother drank a lot,
approximately 10 to 15 cans of Twisted Tea, and that stepfather and mother
argue because he does not want mother to drink. Vc. explained that mother
did not physically discipline the children but would threaten to drink if they
did not listen. She also reported that mother smokes marijuana with
stepfather in the backyard, and that stepgrandmother also smokes
marijuana. Mother also takes pills. Vc. did not know what the pills were for
but thought they calmed mother down. Vc. shared that she and her siblings
were in foster care for approximately two or two and one-half years in North
Dakota, and she has another brother who is in boarding school. She stated
that, when they lived in Spirit Lake, mother wanted to kill herself with a
sharp object. Vc. reported that she and her siblings have blankets and sleep
on the floor and do not eat breakfast at home because there is not any food to
eat. Vc. stated that she has not gone to the dentist or the doctor for about
two years.
Dr. told the social worker that Vn. and mother got into an argument
“yesterday” while mother was driving, and mother dropped him and Vn. at
home. Vc. left with mother again. Dr. reported that mother drinks alcohol “a
lot,” the last time he saw her drink was when she drank two Twisted Teas,
and he has lost count of how many times she has driven with them after

6
drinking alcohol. Dr. asked when mother would come home and said he felt
hungry because he had only had a soda and a sandwich from Safeway that
day. He reported that mother smokes in the backyard with stepfather every
day, and they allowed Vn. to smoke with them. Dr. reported that he does not
go to school and watches movies all day. He gets scared when stepfather and
mother get into arguments, and he does not feel comfortable when stepfather
is angry.
The children each reported feeling safe under the care of stepfather and
stepgrandmother, but afraid and unsafe around mother when she is drinking.
All three reported that mother did not physically hit, shove, or push them,
nor did they see stepfather physically pushing, shoving or hitting.
Stepfather reported that he and mother had been married since 2021,
and mother and the children moved in one month ago. Stepfather knew that
mother struggled with alcohol in the past but was not aware, until her arrest,
that she had started drinking again. He stated that he would not allow her
to drink and drive with the children. Stepfather had served 10 years in
prison (from 2008 to 2018) and was unemployed. Mother also was not
employed but was looking for a job, and the family was using money from a
truck they sold in North Dakota. The children were not yet enrolled in
school, and mother was receiving CalFresh benefits and was in the process of
getting MediCal for them. Stepfather stated that he and mother smoked
marijuana in the backyard while the children were safe inside the house;
they did not use any other drugs. Stepfather agreed to work on a safety plan
for when mother returned home. He reported that when the children were in
foster care in North Dakota, he and mother worked hard to get the children
back.

7
Stepgrandmother showed the social worker the two-bedroom home.
She allowed the family to live with her because they had no other place to
live and she did not want them to be on the street. Stepgrandmother was
aware of mother’s drinking history, and her son (stepfather) stops mother
from drinking. The day prior was the first time that stepgrandmother had
witnessed mother drinking. As to running water and food, stepgrandmother
reported that she did not have enough money to pay the water bill and had a
broken pipe. She stated that the children had cereal with milk for breakfast,
but there was no milk in the refrigerator, and the cereal box was empty. She
did not have snacks for the children and told the social worker that the
children had finished all the food they had that day. Stepgrandmother did
not show the social worker the bedrooms; she explained that her husband
had passed away in one of the bedrooms a few years ago and she never
allowed anyone to enter it.
That evening, the children were taken into protective custody. Mother
was released from custody but placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold for
being gravely disabled due to alcohol abuse.
Mother was released the next day and spoke with the social worker.
She acknowledged that the children were removed from her care due to her
drinking and driving with a child in the car. Mother explained that she had
had a child welfare case in 2020 in North Dakota, due to her drinking and to
the children’s father’s drug use. At that time, she participated in outpatient
and counseling services while the children were home with her. Mother later
told the social worker that father was very abusive to her in front of the
children, he did not do anything to get the children back when they were
removed, he allowed Vn. and Vc. to be sexually abused, and she had full
custody. Mother stated that she has been diagnosed with depression,

8
anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and high blood pressure. She was
prescribed 25 milligrams of Zoloft but was not taking it daily so that it would
last until their MediCal insurance started. Vc. and Dr. were both diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but were not taking
medication until they could get it through MediCal.
On May 6, the department filed a juvenile dependency petition under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1) as to all three children, and, on August 8, filed
separate, first amended dependency petitions for each of the children
(together, petitions). The petitions alleged that the children were at
substantial risk of serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)) and were placed
into protective custody because of mother’s alcohol abuse. Additional
allegations pertained to mother’s extensive history of alcohol abuse and prior
child welfare involvement in North Dakota, her continued use of marijuana,
the children’s removal from father’s care in North Dakota due to concerns of
abuse, Vc.’s diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome and mother’s failure to
adequately supervise or protect her or take care of her special needs, and
Vn.’s self-harm behaviors and history of marijuana use.
On May 7, mother filed notice of the children’s Indian status, declaring
their membership in the Spirit Lake Nation. The juvenile court held a
hearing on the petition. Mother and the children were present at the hearing
with their court-appointed counsel. A representative of the Spirit Lake tribe
appeared by telephone and stated that the tribe planned to intervene in the
case but was not requesting transfer to the tribal court.5 The representative

5 The juvenile court in this matter later determined—after consulting

with judicial officers of both the Spirit Lake Tribal Court and Ramsey
County, North Dakota—that it had continuing jurisdiction over the children
under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam.
Code, § 3400 et seq.). Mother does not challenge that determination.
9
confirmed that the prior child welfare case for the family was under the
jurisdiction of the Spirit Lake Tribal Court.
The department addressed ICWA’s requirements related to placement
of the children, acknowledging that “active efforts were not provided prior to
the removal given the emergency nature of the removal” but that the
department would continue to make active efforts going forward to try to
avoid the children’s removal at disposition. The department sought a
temporary good cause finding for deviating from ICWA placement
preferences. Counsel explained that the children were placed together
temporarily in an out-of-county licensed foster home and that the department
would work with the family and Spirit Lake tribe to identify “ICWA
compliant placement as soon as possible.” Through her counsel, mother
stated that she understood the concerns of the department and took the
allegations seriously. Because she also was facing criminal charges, she
would not address the specific allegations but was “absolutely willing to work
with the [d]epartment as if the allegations are true.”
The juvenile court ordered the children’s continued detention, finding it
necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to the children and no
reasonable means of protecting them short of removal. The court ordered the
department to make “ongoing active efforts to work with the Spirit Lake
Tribe and the family to locate an ICWA compliant placement.” It also
ordered that mother be provided supervised visits once weekly for a
minimum of four hours.
C. Jurisdiction and Disposition
The juvenile court continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing
(hearing) several times in May, June, July, and August. Matters addressed
during the continued hearings included the court’s continuing jurisdiction,

10
mother’s request that the children be returned to her care and for a contested
hearing, and stepfather’s request to be granted presumed father status
(which the court denied after considering testimony and the arguments of
counsel).
During this period, the department continued to investigate
appropriate placements for the children and facilitate mother’s participation
in services and reunification efforts. All three children experienced
significant mental health and behavioral issues while in foster care.
1. Disposition Report and Addenda (May – October)
The department’s June 23 disposition report (June 23 report)
recommended that the juvenile court sustain the section 300, subdivision (b)
petition as to all three children, declare the children dependents of the
juvenile court, and provide reunification services for the parents. Together
with the May 28 jurisdiction report and addendum reports for June, August,
September, and October, the department provided a detailed account of the
family’s history and challenges in North Dakota, the children’s mental health
and behavioral struggles while in foster care, mother’s engagement with
services, and the department’s efforts to identify appropriate services and
foster placements.
a. The Children
The children were placed on May 5 in an emergency foster home in
Merced County. The caregiver reported that Vc. and Dr. fought constantly
and required close supervision. She also reported that 12-year-old Vc. and 8-
year-old Dr. presented as much younger than their ages, and the pediatrician
recommended an evaluation for developmental delays.
Mother reported that Vc. and Dr. were each diagnosed with ADHD and
required medication. Vc. was also diagnosed after birth with fetal alcohol

11
syndrome. Dr. had a speech delay and behavioral challenges, and it was
discovered upon his enrollment in summer school that he did not know how
to read. The school inquired whether Dr. had an Individualized Education
Plan (IEP) and stated that a regular classroom would be unable to meet his
needs. In mid-June, Dr. was evaluated by a psychiatrist who cited Dr.’s
“ ‘extreme behavior and aggression’ ” at summer school and indicated possible
diagnoses of autism and fetal alcohol syndrome. In early September, the
caregiver reported that Dr. was doing “so much better this school year” and
“ ‘much better with therapy and his medication.’ ” Dr.’s caregiver reported in
October that he was at times emotional and cried, regularly expressed
wanting to return to mother’s care, and told his caregiver that he wished
mother did not drink alcohol. In late October, the social worker inquired with
Dr.’s medical team whether he was ready to start participating in family
therapy but had not yet received a response as of the disposition hearing.
Vn. and Vc. were both hospitalized during their foster placement.
On June 2, Vn. was hospitalized when the caregiver discovered she had
cut her arms and face with a screw from the bed. Vn. was discharged on
June 13 but readmitted on June 14 due to self-harming behaviors. Vn.
remained hospitalized as of the June 23 report.
On June 13, Vc. was placed on a psychiatric hold in a separate hospital
and remained there as of the June 23 report. The caregiver expressed
concerns about caring for two teenage girls with self-harm behaviors and
thought it appeared the girls “had a pact” to go to the hospital. As of the
June 23 report, the department had been unsuccessful in identifying foster
placements that could care for Vn. and Vc. upon their release from the
hospital, even if they were separated. The Spirit Lake tribal representative
agreed to continue trying to identify potential placements and kinship names.

12
Mother and stepfather also agreed to provide relative names and phone
numbers to the department for potential placements.
The social worker asked mother about scars that she observed on Vn.’s
arms. Mother stated that Vn. had a history of cutting herself, and that she
had taken Vn. to the hospital in North Dakota due to her cutting behavior,
but Vn. was not receiving services because that would have required her to
transport Vn. to a different state. When they moved to California, mother
“ ‘just left it alone.’ ”
Vn. acknowledged having thoughts of harming herself but stated she
was not having those thoughts at present. Vn denied using alcohol or drugs.
Vn. later told the caregiver that mother and stepfather allowed her to smoke
marijuana with them “because[] ‘[she] was miserable.’ ” Mother denied
allowing Vn. to smoke with her and stepfather but stated that she knew Vn.
smoked marijuana with her friends in North Dakota.
After Vn. was discharged from the hospital in late June, the
department placed her in one of Santa Clara County’s transitional shelter
care facilities, a licensed facility for temporary stays for children lacking an
available foster placement. In August, the department placed Vn. in a
specialized foster home, which was a time-limited placement through mid-
October. Vn. experienced additional hospitalizations in late July and mid-
August. Vn. disclosed to the medical worker that she was feeling bad about
being in foster care and felt responsible for mother’s DUI.
During her hospitalization in June, Vc. was diagnosed with unspecified
mood disorder and ADHD, combined type. Vc. reported feelings of
depression, anxiety, hopelessness, worthlessness, and suicidal ideation. After
Vc. was discharged from the hospital, she returned to her former placement
with Dr. in Merced County.

13
In early August, Vc. disclosed to a clinician that she was afraid to share
her trauma history and feelings because it would get mother into trouble and
she would not be able to reunify with mother. The clinician also reported
concerns about Vc. presenting as a much younger child and stated that she
would refer her for a comprehensive assessment as she was not qualified to
make a developmental diagnosis.
In late August, Vc. attacked her therapist while screaming that she
was going to kill her (the therapist), that all she wanted was to see her
mother and why is she (mother) cancelling visits, and that no one was
helping her. Vc. was placed on a psychiatric hold, and the caregiver informed
the department that she would not be able to take Vc. back after she was
discharged because she did not think she could keep Vc. safe. Vc. was
discharged from the hospital shortly after and was admitted to a transitional
shelter care facility. Vc. told the caregiver that she wanted to go to court to
tell the judge that she, Dr., and Vn. should return to their mom, and that
everyone is doing everything against mother and mother thinks it is her
(Vc.’s) fault.
In early October, mother cancelled a meeting with Vc.’s providers due
to not feeling well, and upon arriving at the meeting Vc. repeatedly expressed
frustration that mother was not there. Mother commented, during a visit
with Vc. shortly after the missed meeting, that Vc.’s eyes looked “ ‘weird’ ”
and she was not happy about all the new medication Vc. had been prescribed.
The next week, Vc. refused to meet with her psychiatrist or take her
medicine, stating her mother told her that she was taking too much medicine.
The social worker had inquired with Vc.’s service providers if she had started
individual therapy and if she was ready for family therapy but had not
received a response as of the disposition hearing.

14
b. Mother
Shortly after the initial hearing in May, mother reported that she had
started outpatient substance abuse treatment. A client status report from
the treatment program in early August indicated that mother had been
attending sessions weekly since mid-May 2025 and had attended six of 12
group therapy sessions. Mother’s drug tests for mid-May through early
August were positive for marijuana and negative for any other substance or
alcohol. Mother also was wearing an electronic ankle monitor (in connection
with her pending criminal case) that monitored for alcohol. In mid-
September, mother pleaded no contest to charges of driving under the
influence with a child under the age of 14 in the vehicle and was sentenced to
three years of informal probation and ordered to complete a three-month
alcohol offender class.
In August, mother had six unexcused missed drug tests and stopped
testing on August 8. Mother reported mid-August that she had suffered a
“ ‘mini stroke’ ” and was admitted to the hospital and discharged on August
16. This affected mother’s participation in her case plan, and she reported to
the social worker on August 25 that stepfather had had seizures and was in
the hospital. Mother stated that she was trying to get back on track but
failed to provide the social worker with the requested doctor’s note to confirm
any medical restrictions from her stroke and did not provide requested
updates on stepfather’s health status.
As of early September, mother had not provided any documentation of
her participation in 12-step meetings. Also around that time, shortly after
the resolution of mother’s criminal case, the department social worker made
an unannounced home visit to stepgrandmother’s house where mother was
residing and observed a strong odor of alcohol in front of the home and a beer

15
can beside the door. Mother’s ankle bracelet had been removed earlier that
day. Stepgrandmother stated that she brought the beer can home for
recycling and that “ ‘no one here drinks.’ ”
Mother completed additional drug tests in late September and October,
with two missed unexcused tests (which the department presumes positive
for alcohol). Her drug tests were positive for marijuana and negative for
other substances. Mother completed her outpatient treatment program in
early October. The service provider reported that mother smelled like
marijuana at her last group session and mother’s “ ‘decision to use marijuana
is pre-contemplative behavior and she appears to be at continued risk of
relapse without a structured environment or mandates.’ ” The department
recognized mother’s efforts in beginning treatment to address her long
history of alcohol abuse and mental health challenges. But mother was early
in her sobriety, had not participated in AA meetings, obtained a sponsor, or
started therapy. Mother needed to solidify a relapse prevention plan,
understand her triggers to prevent relapse and maintain sobriety, and
address her use of marijuana in lieu of alcohol. The department also noted
concerns about mother’s relationship dynamic with stepfather, as all the
children reported that stepfather has anger issues, and he and mother argue
constantly. Stepfather reported that their arguments were about mother
wanting to drink, and he would prevent her from drinking. Mother was
scheduled to begin the “Celebrating Families” class on September 25.
As of October, mother had identified a sponsor who had agreed to
support mother in attending AA meetings, but mother had not yet attended
any meetings. Mother was participating in the Celebrating Families class
and had also elected to participate in a special needs class. She also reported

16
that she had been hired to work at Safeway and was waiting to obtain her
schedule.
The department connected mother with behavioral health services and
confirmed that she had been receiving treatment since mid-May for
generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder. Mother was taking
medication, which she reported was helping her emotional stability and
ability to communicate, but she had not begun therapy. Mother
acknowledged that she made a mistake by not planning so that she had
appointments and medication for the children when they arrived in
California. She also admitted that she had not enrolled them in school, as
she was trying to secure housing. Mother’s rehabilitation counselor at
behavioral health services was in the process of trying to connect her with a
therapist.
In early August, the social worker re-referred mother to the Indian
Health Center, where she had previously been referred by the ICWA social
worker. Mother completed a screening and signed a release of information
with Ms. Yellowhorse, a Native American therapist, but as of mid-October,
mother had missed her first two appointments to complete an intake. Ms.
Yellowhorse had called mother to reschedule the intake, but mother had not
yet returned her call. Ms. Yellowhorse confirmed that, once mother has
completed her intake, she could be scheduled for weekly therapy sessions and
provided additional support, including traditional healers. The social worker
spoke with mother and offered to call Ms. Yellowhorse using a three-way call
and to inquire about obtaining a medical doctor through Indian Health
Center. Mother declined the assistance and indicated that she still had the
phone number. In a follow-up call with the social worker on October 21,

17
mother stated that she had called Ms. Yellowhorse and had an appointment
scheduled for the next week.
The department learned that mother had three convictions in North
Dakota for driving under the influence, including in August 2024 and
January 2025 (within one year of the incident giving rise to the children’s
removal in California). In May, mother informed the social worker that the
children’s sibling Da. had left boarding school and moved in with her at the
home with stepfather and stepgrandmother. The department social worker
documented concerns about mother’s capacity to care for Da., who was 14
years old, given the recent removal of the other children and mother’s history
of alcohol abuse, limited food in the home, and living conditions. The
department was not aware at that time whether Da. has any developmental,
medical, or mental health conditions or diagnoses. A referral was made to
assess Da.’s safety in the home.
In mid-September, the department social worker spoke with another
individual (“Ms. Murphy”), identified by mother as a support person. Ms.
Murphy resided in North Dakota, was also a member of the Spirit Lake tribe,
had grown up with the children’s maternal grandmother, was in
communication with mother, and confirmed that she would be a support
person and that mother could call her “ ‘day or night.’ ” Ms. Murphy was not
a placement option for the children due to her family obligations and
explained that maternal grandmother also could not be a placement as she
was residing with a registered sex offender. Ms. Murphy was not aware of
any tribal or ICWA services or classes that were accessible online.
In another conversation with department social worker, Spirit Lake’s
interim director of tribal social services confirmed the information about
maternal grandmother (that she could not serve as a potential placement due

18
to living with a registered sex offender) and indicated that the tribe was not
able to assist mother without mother’s consent, since mother had refused to
work with tribal social services.
2. Hearing
The juvenile court held the hearing over five days in September and
October. Mother’s counsel clarified that mother was not contesting
jurisdiction but was contesting the petitions’ allegations. Mother was
requesting the return of the children on a plan of family maintenance.
Counsel for the children joined the department’s recommendation as to
disposition.
The juvenile court heard testimony from mother, stepgrandmother,
department social worker, and Melissa Lourens, a qualified ICWA expert
from the Spirit Lake Nation. The court also granted a request by minors’
counsel to exclude Vn. and Vc. from being present at the contested hearing.
The court recognized Vn.’s and Vc.’s right to be present but agreed with their
counsel that, under the circumstances and given concerns about their mental
health histories and potential for escalation, their best interests warranted
their exclusion
a. Mother
Mother testified that she struggles with memory issues, including after
her hospitalization for a minor stroke. Mother described her history in North
Dakota, including her 12-year relationship with the children’s father,
substance abuse and physical abuse, marrying stepfather, who helped her
reunify with the children, and moving from the reservation to Devil’s Lake,
and to California at the end of March. Mother began drinking alcohol at the
age of 12 years old; the longest period of sobriety she has maintained as an
adult was two years.

19
Mother had enrolled the children in medical insurance but
acknowledged that she was still in the process of finding housing and had not
yet enrolled them in school. She believed that if she had had more time, she
would have done so, as she had done for Da. after his arrival in San Jose on
May 9. Da. was attending high school regularly, and mother had enrolled
him in a program to help with school supplies and lunches, since she was still
looking for work. She felt confident she could do the same for the children
once returned to her. Da. does not have any mental health or behavioral
health diagnoses. Da. did have a physical altercation with another youth
while in school at the time in South Dakota, which landed him in juvenile
detention for one week. She believes that Da. could benefit from therapeutic
services but had not yet enrolled him.
Mother identified herself as a chronic alcoholic with extensive family
history of alcoholism. She testified that she takes accountability for the
trauma caused to her children due to her alcoholism and “that’s why [she is]
willing to participate in therapy, family therapy, anything to help to fix this
problem.” Mother is working on her sobriety daily, which is harder without
the ankle monitor, but she is using her support people including stepfather,
stepgrandmother, and her sponsor. Mother denied that she used alcohol
after her ankle monitor was removed, asserting the beer can in front of the
house was from stepgrandmother collecting recycling for cash.
Mother has taken up doing beadwork to alleviate stress. She explained
that she had several deaths in the family (two cousins and an uncle), and
stepfather was hospitalized twice during the course of these proceedings, but
she has not relapsed. The social worker had asked mother for documentation
so she could make accommodations to her case plan, but mother had not
provided what she asked. Mother was in touch with her sponsor, had started

20
the 12-step program, and was engaged in outpatient services. Mother
acknowledged using marijuana in the evenings outside where she does
beadwork. She does it privately with stepfather, away from Da., who is
inside. She does not feel that using marijuana has impacted her ability to
parent Da. or make good decisions.
Mother acknowledged driving with Vc. on May 3. She agreed that she
has gotten angry and driven intoxicated with the children but denied that she
has ever threatened the children with drinking when they did not listen.
Mother stated that an argument with stepfather had triggered her on the day
of her arrest, and since then she and he have been working on taking
accountability. Mother has been taking her psychiatric medication and feels
that it helps her, and she has been trying to begin individual therapy.
Mother believes that she can keep the children safe at this stage in her
sobriety. She is not currently driving and does not have access to a vehicle.
She takes the bus and has support to help her, including stepfather, her
brother-in-law and mother-in-law, and has even reconnected with her own
mother. Mother was open to taking classes for parenting children with
special needs, and for parenting teenagers. The department had not offered
those classes. Mother would allow professionals into the home to help
support her and the children. She is open to creating a safety plan around
marijuana use and has been trying to use less frequently.
Mother was concerned for Vn., who had self-harmed before but “not like
this.” The hospital in North Dakota had suggested a program for Vn. in
Minnesota, but mother decided to come to California. Mother and stepfather
had not had a chance to get Vn. resources to help her before she was
removed. Since Vn. was taken, Vn. has run away from her foster home and
been hospitalized numerous times. Mother testified she was afraid that, if

21
Vn. was not reunified with her soon, mother would receive a call from police
that Vn. had passed away.
Mother explained that Vc. had fetal alcohol syndrome and ADHD. Vc.
was assessed for an IEP in North Dakota, and mother attended those
meetings. Vc. did well in school while taking her ADHD medication, and
under mother’s care she had never been aggressive or threatened anyone.
Mother testified it was “upsetting. It’s behaviors that I’ve never seen before
with both of my girls.”
Mother testified that Dr. was “a late bloomer,” did have an IEP “at one
point in time,” and was taking medication for ADHD. She believed his
sadness and emotions were due to Vc. leaving the foster placement so that he
was without any siblings, and that he wanted to return home to her and
stepfather.
b. Stepgrandmother
Stepgrandmother described her relationship with the children, initially
meeting them through video calls. In March, stepgrandmother was able to fly
to North Dakota and help her son, who had seizures, drive back to California
with the children and mother. The intent was for them to live temporarily at
her home, until they (mother, stepfather, and the children) got their own
housing. Stepgrandmother explained that mother did not enroll the children
in school, as school would have ended within 30 or 45 days of the children’s
arrival, and mother did not know what district to enroll them since she did
not know yet where they would be living.
If the children are reunified, stepgrandmother would allow them to live
with her. She would open the second room and allow the girls to sleep there.
She works long hours for a retractable screen door company, but she
currently helps with Da. when he gets home from school. Stepgrandmother

22
has participated in one of the child and family team meetings but did not
recall any discussion of formulating a safety plan. Stepgrandmother had also
participated in a recent visit with Vc. and Dr. She would allow the
department to inspect the home, so long as her son or mother is there.
Stepgrandmother agreed that, because of the water being off, her home was
not appropriate for the children at the time they were removed.
Neither stepgrandmother nor her son uses alcohol. On cross-
examination, stepgrandmother stated that she began using marijuana when
she was undergoing cancer treatment, which is over but she still uses
marijuana a few times a week for pain. She keeps the marijuana locked in a
drawer in her room.
c. Department Social Worker
Department social worker Silvia Rodriguez testified as an expert in
risk assessment, child welfare investigations, and the provision of services in
child welfare cases. Rodriguez has been the assigned social worker for the
children’s dependency case since shortly after they were placed into
protective custody. Rodriguez opined that mother was not “solidly in her
recovery” because mother continued to struggle with substance abuse issues,
following through on her appointments, and had not fully engaged in all the
recommended services. Rodriguez believed that mother’s marijuana use
impacted her ability to meet the children’s needs. The children’s mental
health and behavioral needs were “extensive” and required a parent who “can
be readily available to respond to any crisis or emergency[,] and marijuana
use can . . . impact a parent’s ability to respond.” Rodriguez explained that
each of the children had needs that required “an active parent” who is readily
available and able to supervise the children at all times. Failing to do so
could result in serious bodily harm or even death to the children, given both

23
girls’ mental health issues and expressions of suicidal ideology and acts of
self-harm. Rodriguez also opined that mother’s ongoing mental health and
substance abuse issues adversely affected mother’s ability to follow through
on daily tasks.
Rodriguez testified that the case has remained longer than is typical in
the dependency investigation phase, and during that time she has made
active efforts to connect mother to supportive resources. These efforts
included connecting mother with the department’s ICWA social worker who
“provided her with resources that are native in our community,” asking
mother if there were any specific services she might need, and speaking with
several members of the Spirit Lake tribe to ask about possible resources that
could be provided virtually. However, the tribe did not identify any such
resources.
Rodriguez further testified that she did not believe that
stepgrandmother and stepfather were able to ensure the children’s safety if
they were returned home. Rodriguez made many attempts to contact
stepgrandmother and had difficulty scheduling time to speak with her. They
did eventually speak, and stepgrandmother participated in one child and
family team plan. Rodriguez was concerned that stepgrandmother was not
home during the day, did not acknowledge there were concerns in her son’s
relationship with mother, did not think the children had behavioral health
concerns, and had expressed a desire on weekends to “kickback with her
Adderall and do her laundry.” Rodriguez similarly had concerns about
stepfather’s ability to be a safety person for mother and the children.
Stepfather had exhibited short tempered behavior in interviews with the
department, had walked out of at least two meetings, and became “escalated”
when the social worker raised concerns about visitation. The children

24
additionally reported ongoing arguments between stepfather and mother and
stated that they would want to return home if mother and stepfather stopped
arguing.
The department’s recommendations for mother included a parent
orientation, two parenting classes (“Celebrating Families” and “Parenting
Children with Special Needs”), individual and family therapy, drug and
alcohol testing, participation in 12-step meetings, a substance use treatment
assessment, after care services, and a relapse prevention plan. Mother had
completed the parent orientation and was in the process of starting on or
proceeding with each of these case plan elements. Although mother was
participating in services, Rodriguez opined that it had not translated into
returning the children home because “the reasons or the exposure to her kids
continues to be the same.”
On cross-examination, Rodriguez stated that she and the ICWA social
worker had provided mother with resources (i.e., given her the phone
numbers for behavioral health for therapy) and had not called with her or
accompanied her to intake appointments because mother indicated she could
call the providers. Rodriguez asserted that the reason mother had not
started therapy “wasn’t because we didn’t provide her with the resources.
She lacked the ability to follow through and obtain the resource – the actual
therapy.” Rodriguez stated that while Da. remained in the home, the
department social worker who conducted an assessment of Da. in the home
determined the risk to be “moderate.” Rodriguez has the same concerns for
Da.’s safety as she has for all the children.
D. Tribal Representative
Melissa Lourens is employed by the Spirit Lake tribe as an in-home
family service specialist and testified as a qualified expert witness on ICWA.

25
Lourens is also a member of the Spirit Lake tribe. Lourens opined, based on
her review of the case file and the hearing testimony, that mother “hasn’t
progressed enough” in her case plan and treatments and has not shown “an
adequate period of sobriety and thoroughly addressed her mental health
issues.” Lourens noted that mother had not completed the 12-step program
or all the recommendations of the case plan.
Lourens testified that the department had provided mother with
appropriate services and programs and made active efforts to prevent the
breakup of the family. She stated that the tribe did not have any other
potential placement options for the children at this time, and, given the
circumstances of the case, there was good cause to deviate from the ICWA
placement preferences. Lourens agreed on cross-examination that the
children were struggling in their foster and transitional placements but did
not think they could safely be returned to mother until mother had
progressed further in her case plan. Lourens agreed with the department’s
recommendation to continue reunification services to help mother move
toward reunification.
3. Juvenile Court’s Ruling
On October 24, after considering the testimony and arguments of
counsel, the juvenile court issued its order on jurisdiction and disposition.
The court commended mother for her openness, honesty, and trustworthiness
in testifying about her challenges and “not hiding from the facts” of the
struggles she faces. It found that mother loves her children “very very much”
and that they love her as well. Nevertheless, the court found that mother
needed to resolve those issues that had brought the dependency to the court
before it could return the children home.

26
The juvenile court found the allegations of the petitions true as alleged,
that the children have behavioral health needs and there was a lapse in
enrolling them in school, and that, even as mother has begun engaging in
helpful activities like beading, walking, and social services, the children are
not “safe.” The court found that the department had met its burden, by clear
and convincing evidence, that the children’s welfare required that physical
custody be taken from mother and that there would be a substantial danger
to the children’s physical or emotional safety if they were returned to
mother’s physical custody. The court found, as to Vn., that she had self-
harming behavior and a history of marijuana use, and the failure or inability
to meet her needs places her at substantial risk of serious physical and
emotional harm in mother’s care. It sustained the allegations of the petitions
as to all three children.
The juvenile court further found good cause to deviate from ICWA
preferences, as there was no appropriate tribal placement—as confirmed by
the qualified tribal expert—and reasonable efforts had been made to prevent
the need for removal of the children from their home. It also found, by clear
and convincing evidence, that active efforts had been made to provide
remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the
breakup of the Indian family. It found that “those efforts have proved
unsuccessful as of now” and that placement outside of the county was
authorized due to the special needs of the children. The court encouraged the
department to continue its efforts to safety plan, including with
stepgrandmother (whom the court found to be credible at times, though her
availability was limited).
The juvenile court adopted the case plan and ordered reunification
services, including supervised weekly visits with mother for a minimum of

27
four hours. The court gave the department full discretion to increase the
frequency of visitation, including a recommendation to accommodate a mid-
week phone call as requested by mother’s counsel. Counsel for the children
joined the request for supervised mid-week phone calls. The court set a six-
month review hearing for April 15, 2026.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother raises two issues on appeal. She contends that the juvenile
court’s order for removal of the children at disposition was unsupported,
where mother had another minor child (Da.) who was similarly situated yet
allowed to remain in mother’s custody and where the law requires
significantly heightened efforts to avoid the removal of Indian children
compared to non-Indian children. Mother also maintains that the
department failed to make active efforts, as required by ICWA and California
law, to provide appropriate remedial services and rehabilitative programs to
prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
A. Legal Principles
“ ‘ “A dependency proceeding under section 300 is essentially a
bifurcated proceeding.” [Citation.] First, the court must determine whether
the minor is within any of the descriptions set out in section 300 and
therefore subject to its jurisdiction.’ [Citation.] Section 300, subdivision
(b)(1), authorizes a juvenile court to exercise dependency jurisdiction over a
child if the ‘child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will
suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of
his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.’ ” (In re
E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 205 (E.E.).)
“[I]f the court exercises jurisdiction over the minor, it must decide the
appropriate disposition. Generally, the court chooses between allowing the

28
child to remain in the home with protective services in place and removing
the child from the home while the parent engages in services to facilitate
reunification.” (E.E., supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 205; see Michael G. v.
Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624.) Removal requires clear and
convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the child, based on one of the
grounds specified by the Legislature, and no reasonable way to protect the
child in the home. (§ 361, subd. (c)6; see In re Henry V. (2004) 119
Cal.App.4th 522, 525); E.E., at pp. 205–206.) The specified ground for
removal in this case is “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the
physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means
by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the
minor from the minor’s parent’s, guardian’s, or Indian custodian’s physical
custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) The court must consider whether “[r]easonable
efforts have been made to prevent removal.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
5.695(d)(1).)
In a dependency proceeding involving a confirmed Indian child,
additional protections and standards apply under both California and federal
law. “Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 ‘to protect the best interests of Indian
children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and

6 Section 361, subdivision (c) states, “A dependent child shall not be

taken from the physical custody of their parents, guardian or guardians, or
Indian custodian with whom the child resides at the time the petition was
initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any
of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, and,
where it is known or there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child,
as defined by” statute. Section 224.1, paragraph (6) defines “the term ‘Indian
child’ ” in relation to being a member or citizen of an Indian tribe, or being
eligible for membership or citizenship and a biological child or a member or
citizen. (§ 224.1, subd. (b)(1)(A), (B).))
29
families . . ..’ (25 U.S.C. § 1902.)” (In re A.L. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 628, 637
(A.L.).) In 2006, the Legislature amended California’s statutes “to bring
them into greater conformity with ICWA.” (Ibid.; see Dezi C., supra, 16
Cal.5th at pp. 1130–1131.) The state is required to apply that law which
provides greater protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of
an Indian child. (25 U.S.C. § 1921.)
Those requirements include that a party seeking an involuntary foster
care placement of an Indian child must first satisfy the court that “active
efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that
these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(d); § 361.7, subd.
(a).) The department must document the active efforts “in detail in the
record.” (§ 361.7, subd. (a); see also 25 C.F.R. § 23.121(b).)
“What constitutes active efforts shall be assessed on a case-by-case
basis” (§ 361.7, subd. (b)), considering “the prevailing social and cultural
values, conditions, and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe” and utilizing
“the available resources of the Indian child’s extended family, tribe, tribal
and other Indian social service agencies, and individual Indian caregiver
service providers” (ibid.).
“ ‘Active efforts’ means affirmative, active, thorough, and timely efforts
intended primarily to maintain or reunite an Indian child with their family.
If an agency is involved in an Indian child custody proceeding, active efforts
shall involve assisting the parent, . . . through the steps of a case plan and
with accessing or developing the resources necessary to satisfy the case plan.
To the maximum extent possible, active efforts shall be provided in a manner
consistent with the prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life of
the Indian child’s tribe and shall be conducted in partnership with the Indian

30
child and the Indian child’s parents, extended family members, Indian
custodians, and tribe. . . . Active efforts shall be tailored to the facts and
circumstances of the case and may include, but are not limited to . . .: [¶]
(1) Conducting a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the
Indian child’s family, with a focus on safe reunification as the most desirable
goal. [¶] (2) Identifying appropriate services, . . . and helping the parents
overcome barriers, including actively assisting the parents in obtaining those
services. [¶] (3) Identifying, notifying, and inviting representatives of the
Indian child’s tribe to participate in providing support and services to the
Indian child’s family and in family team meetings, permanency planning, and
resolution of placement issues. [¶] (4) Conducting or causing to be conducted
a diligent search for the Indian child’s extended family members, and
contacting and consulting with extended family members regarding possible
placements and to provide family structure and support for the Indian child
and the Indian child’s parents.” (§ 224.1, subd. (f).)
In granting such a foster placement, the juvenile court must also
determine, “supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony
of a qualified expert witness, as defined in [s]ection 224.6, that the continued
custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in
serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” (§ 361.7, subd. (c); 25
U.S.C. § 1912(e).) The evidence “must show a causal relationship between
the particular conditions in the home and the likelihood that continued
custody of the child will result in serious emotional or physical damage to the
particular child who is the subject of the child-custody proceeding.” (25
C.F.R. § 23.121(c); see In re Collin E. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 647, 658.)
Under section 224.6, a “ ‘qualified expert witness’ ” for purposes of an
Indian child custody proceeding “shall be qualified to testify regarding

31
whether continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is
likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child and shall
be qualified to testify to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the
Indian child’s tribe. A person may be designated by the child’s tribe as
qualified to testify to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the
Indian child’s tribe. The individual may not be an employee of the person or
agency recommending foster care placement, . . . or termination of parental
rights.” (Id., subd. (a); see 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e).)
B. Standard of Review
“ ‘In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to
see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them.
[Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences
from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court;
we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s
determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the
province of the trial court.’ ” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633; see In re
I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).)
The appellant bears the burden to show that the juvenile court’s
finding is not supported by substantial evidence. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101
Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) “The term ‘substantial evidence’ means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid
value.” (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433; In re Veronica G.
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.)
In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings
requiring clear and convincing evidence, we do not “ ‘ “reweigh the evidence
or express independent judgment” ’ ” but rather we determine whether a

32
reasonable trier of fact could have found for the respondent based on the
whole record. (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) We do so while bearing in
mind the “high probability demanded by” the “clear and convincing” standard
of proof. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005.)
We decide whether the department satisfied the active efforts
requirement as “a mixed question of law and fact.” (In re K.B. (2009) 173
Cal.App.4th 1275, 1286 (K.B.).) We review the record to determine what
services were provided. (Ibid.) “Whether those services constituted ‘active
efforts’ within the meaning of section 361.7 is a question of law which we
decide independently.” (Ibid.; accord, A.L., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 639.)
C. Analysis
1. Removal From Parental Custody
Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s removal order at disposition
focuses on the apparent incongruity of the determination that returning the
children to mother’s custody would place them at substantial risk of serious
harm while Da. was permitted to remain in mother’s custody. She contends
that the court’s finding that there was a substantial danger to the children’s
physical and emotional well-being if they were returned home “could not be
logically supported if the [m]other was permitted to continue to care for and
maintain custody of one of her four younger children, in the same home, with
the same circumstances, the same background trauma, the same parental
variables, and the same mental health and behavioral challenges as the
children who were removed.” Mother focuses on the elevated burden for
removal in cases—like this one—involving Indian children, reflecting the
Legislature’s focus on family preservation and requiring clear and convincing
evidence of the risk of substantial harm to the children if returned home and
the lack of reasonable means short of removal to protect their safety.

33
We are not persuaded that the juvenile court’s disposition finding as to
each of the three children lacks supporting substantial evidence. The
juvenile court heard testimony over several days and reviewed reports and
addenda containing a detailed accounting of mother’s participation in
outpatient substance abuse treatment, drug and alcohol testing, and her
efforts to build support to maintain sobriety and establish safety factors. The
court also heard expert testimony from stepgrandmother, the department
social worker, and the qualified ICWA expert for the Spirit Lake Nation.
Drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
findings and orders of the juvenile court and viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the court’s determinations (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at
p. 773), it is clear that multiple issues remained insufficiently resolved and
presented significant risk factors to the children’s safety if returned to the
home.
The record documents mother’s extensive history of substance abuse
and alcoholism. Mother acknowledged that she is a chronic alcoholic, began
drinking alcohol at 12 years old, and her longest period of sobriety was two
years. Prior treatment and efforts at maintaining sobriety had been followed
by relapse. Mother had several arrests for driving under the influence with a
child in the vehicle, including two within the past year. Mother recognized
the harmful effect of drinking on the children and substantial danger to them
of driving while intoxicated, yet was not stable in her recovery. Mother
admitted that staying sober was more challenging without the ankle monitor,
she had not yet begun attending AA meetings, and, while she had a sponsor,
the sponsor stated that mother was still on the first step of the 12-step
program.

34
Moreover, mother was smoking marijuana in the evenings and
appeared to have inadequate support in place to help maintain her sobriety.
The facilitator at her outpatient substance abuse treatment noted that
mother smelled like marijuana at her last session and called her marijuana
use “ ‘pre-contemplative behavior’ ” that showed “ ‘continued risk of relapse
without a structured environment or mandates.’ ” Mother also acknowledged
that she had previously “sneak[ed]” alcohol and hid her drinking from
stepfather, and both stepfather and stepgrandmother reported that they did
not know she had been drinking. Mother testified that she was relying on the
close presence of family members (stepfather, stepgrandmother, and Da.) to
help her deal with her cravings.
Mother’s limited progress in establishing sobriety supports and
continued use of marijuana placed the children at substantial risk of physical
and emotional harm if returned to mother’s custody as long as relapse and
lack of sobriety due to ongoing marijuana use was a significant possibility.
All three children reported feeling unsafe when mother was using alcohol,
and Vn. questioned mother’s ability to stop drinking alcohol.
In addition, the record showed that while mother met with the
psychiatrist and was taking her prescribed medication, she had missed her
last appointment. Mother recognized that she would benefit from individual
therapy but had not begun it—having missed two intake appointments with
the referred therapist at Indian Health Center —though she testified that
she had an appointment scheduled. Mother reported addressing her stress
and grief (due in part to the recent deaths of her uncle and two cousins) by
spending many hours a day beading and taking walks and admitted that
when she does not take her medication, she becomes very emotional, cries a
lot, stays in bed, and “basically shut[s] down.”

35
The record thus reflects that, even as mother was taking psychotropic
medication and working to manage her stress factors, she had not begun
therapy and was struggling with daily functioning and follow through. The
record also shows that stepfather was not a significant safety factor in the
home, as he appeared reluctant to work with the department, walked out of
meetings, and the children felt scared when father became angry or argued
with mother.
The record thus supports the juvenile court’s finding that mother’s
tenuous progress in her sobriety and mental health did not sufficiently
reduce the likelihood of physical or emotional detriment to the children if
they were returned to her. The children’s significant needs for behavioral
and emotional support, including IEPs, medical and counseling
appointments, and a present and responsive adult, amplified the substantial
risk of harm to the children if returned to mother’s custody.
Mother testified that she would be able to enroll the children in school
(as she had Da.) and described her fears and concerns about the girls’ self-
harm behaviors and Dr.’s emotional distress. However, there was no
evidence that mother was equipped to address these issues if the three
children were returned to her. Mother was aware of Vn.’s cutting behavior
when they left North Dakota but “ ‘just left it alone’ ” upon arriving in
California. She had not enrolled the children in school or tried to connect Vc.
and Dr. with service providers in California who could prescribe their ADHD
medication or evaluate them for services based on their IEPs. While mother
testified that she believed Da. would benefit from therapy and that she had
spoken to stepfather about it, she had not yet taken any steps to do so.
In sum, the record establishes that during the extended period leading
up to the contested hearing, mother participated in some services but failed

36
to engage (or had only recently begun engaging) in several key services
intended to allow the children’s safe return. Mother’s ongoing struggle at the
time of the hearing to connect and follow through with her own service
providers, as well as her early-stage (step one) sobriety for alcohol, and her
continued use of marijuana, raised serious questions about her ability to
address the needs of the children if they were returned to her. Due to the
children’s significant emotional and behavioral needs and risk factors, we
conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
determination by clear and convincing evidence that returning them to
mother’s custody at this time would place them at substantial risk of serious
physical or emotional injury.
That Da. was permitted to remain in mother’s custody during this
period does not alter the existence of substantial evidence in the record to
support the juvenile court’s determination. Section 361, subdivision (c)(1)
requires a finding based on clear and convincing evidence of “substantial
danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and . . . no
reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected
without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.”
Furthermore, the evidence “must show a causal relationship between the
particular conditions in the home and the likelihood that continued custody of
the child will result in serious emotional or physical damage to the particular
child who is the subject of the child-custody proceeding.” (25 C.F.R.
§ 23.121(c).)
The evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings is specific to the
three children subject to the dependency. The court’s findings were based on
the circumstances the three children experienced after their arrival in

37
California—resulting in their placement into protective custody and the
juvenile dependency petition—and on the record of each of their needs for
stability and protection. During that period, the children were exposed to
mother’s drinking and driving under the influence, her arguing with
stepfather as a factor in the drinking, and Vn.’s distress at mother’s drinking
and arguments with her about it. Each of the children had some combination
of significant mental health diagnosis and/or behavioral challenge requiring
intervention and specialized services. Furthermore, each of the children
identified mother’s drinking and mother’s and stepfather’s arguing as a
source of distress and agitation. These facts support a finding of causal
relationship between “the particular conditions in the home” and “the
likelihood that continued custody of the child will result in serious emotional
or physical damage to the particular child who is the subject of the child-
custody proceeding.” (25 C.F.R. § 23.121(c).)
Da. was differently situated. He arrived in California from boarding
school after mother’s arrest and the children’s removal and was not subject to
mother’s drinking and driving episode in May or to the living conditions at
the time. According to mother, Da. did not have any mental health
diagnoses, self-harm behaviors, or behavioral challenges.7 Further, when Da.
was living with mother in California, mother did not have to care for the
significant needs of any of the other three children.
The social worker who evaluated Da.’s safety after his arrival in
California assessed Da.’s risk as moderate. The reasons given (despite high
risk factors like the family’s prior history, open dependency case, and

7 Although Da. did not have behavioral or mental health diagnoses,

mother described an incident that had occurred between Da. and another
youth when Da. was in school in South Dakota, resulting in Da. staying for
one week stay in juvenile detention.
38
mother’s substance abuse) included current “oversight through court
services” and social worker involvement, mother’s substance abuse
treatment, ankle monitor (at the time), weekly drug testing requirements,
medication compliance, and improvements to the home, including running
water, working shower and toilet, and food in the refrigerator and cupboards.
Also, the social worker assessed Da. as “ ‘at a developmental age to protect
and advocate for himself and seek out support’ ” and noted that he “ ‘was able
to identify local natural supports he can contact in case of an emergency.’ ”
The causal factors that placed the three other children at greater and
specific risk (see 25 C.F.R. § 23.121(c)) were therefore not as substantial for
Da., who was found to have a level of developmental maturity and coping
ability (i.e., ability to seek out supports in case of emergency) not shared by
the others. On this record, the ongoing risk factors that mother had not yet
addressed posed substantially greater danger to the physical and mental
health of the children and supported the conclusion that continued custody by
mother “is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage” to them
in a manner not true for Da. (§ 361.7, subd. (c); 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e).) Based
on the entire record and considering the heightened standard of proof, we
conclude “ ‘ “a reasonable trier of fact could find” ’ ” (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at
p. 773) that return of the children to mother’s custody was substantially
unsafe to them.
2. Active Efforts
Mother contends that the department failed to take active remedial
efforts, required by law, to prevent the breakup of this Indian family. She
argues that the department made only “[m]inimal efforts . . . other than the
standard referrals” and failed to show specific, tailored actions or
coordination to support mother.

39
We have carefully reviewed the record and trial testimony.
Considering the applicable standards, we conclude that the department made
active (albeit ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to provide remedial services
and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the family.
Prior to legislative amendments in 2018 to the California Indian Child
Welfare Act; § 224 et seq.), the term active efforts was not statutorily defined
by ICWA or its California counterpart. (K.B., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1286; see Stats. 2018, c. 833, § 3 [amending § 224.1].) California courts
generally understood the term “to require that timely and affirmative steps
be taken to . . . avoid the breakup of Indian families whenever possible by
providing services designed to remedy problems which might lead to
severance of the parent-child relationship.” (Letitia V. v. Superior Court
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1016 (Letitia V.); accord, K.B., at p. 1284; A.L.,
supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 638.)
The detailed definition supplied by section 224.1 is consistent with the
overarching understanding of “timely and affirmative steps.” (Letitia V.,
supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.) Simply put, active efforts are not passive.8
Active efforts require “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely efforts
intended primarily to maintain or reunite an Indian child with their family”
(§ 224.1, subd. (f)) and “tailored to the facts and circumstances of the case”
(ibid.). Furthermore, active efforts are measured in context of the specific

8 The BIA Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child

Custody Proceedings (Guidelines) “clarify that ‘active efforts’ are ‘a level of
effort beyond “reasonable efforts” ’ that are required for states to qualify for
federal foster care and adoption assistance under the Social Security Act.”
(A.L., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 643, quoting Guidelines, 80 FR 10146–02
(Feb. 25, 2015); see 80 Fed. Reg. 10146, 10150.) While the Guidelines are not
binding authority, they are consistent with California’s statutes and rules.
(A.L., at p. 643.)
40
case (“on a case-by-case basis” (§ 361.7, subd. (b)) and in relation to the
prevailing social and cultural values and way of life of the child’s tribe, as
well as “the available resources” of the extended family, tribe, and tribal and
other Indian social service agencies and service providers (ibid.). Thus, what
constitutes “active efforts” in one case might not be adequate in another,
depending both on the prevailing culture and conditions of the tribe and its
available resources, plus those of the child’s extended family. (See ibid.)
In K.B., the Court of Appeal adopted the guideline for “active efforts”
articulated by the Alaska Supreme Court: “ ‘Passive efforts are where a plan
is drawn up and the client must develop his or her own resources towards
bringing it to fruition. Active efforts . . . is where the state caseworker takes
the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be
performed on its own. For instance, rather than requiring that a client find a
job, acquire new housing, and terminate a relationship with what is
perceived to be a boyfriend who is a bad influence, [ICWA] would require that
the caseworker help the client develop job and parenting skills necessary to
retain custody of her child.’ ” (K.B., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287,
quoting A.A. v. State (Alaska 1999) 982 P.2d 256, 261.)
The Court of Appeal in K.B. upheld the juvenile court’s finding that
active efforts were made and affirmed the order terminating parental rights
as to three children with Choctaw Nation heritage. (K.B., supra, 173
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1280, 1287.) The Court of Appeal explained that the social
services department had “provided numerous services to the mother” in both
a prior dependency and the current dependency involving the children,
including in-patient substance abuse, counseling, and a parenting class (all of
which the mother had completed), assistance in finding housing, including
monetary assistance with rent, and bus passes to assist in attending

41
programs and facilitate visitation. (Id. at p. 1287.) The Court of Appeal
decided, “[i]t is abundantly clear that [the department of social services] did
more than merely draw up a reunification plan and leave the mother to use
her own resources to bring it to fruition. [Citations.] On the contrary, [the
department] provided the mother with the resources necessary to achieve the
goals of her case plan. This constitutes ‘active efforts’ within the meaning of
ICWA.” (Ibid.)
In A.L., the Court of Appeal similarly concluded that services provided
to the mother, Amber L., constituted active efforts under ICWA and
California law. (A.L., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 637, 642.) These efforts
included the social services agency’s “good faith effort to develop and
implement a plan to address the [mother’s drug abuse] problem and to return
the minors to Amber’s care,” its attempt “to maintain contact with Amber in
the face of her steady resistance,” and its success “in getting Amber into
treatment for a brief period of time.” (Id. at p. 643.) The agency undertook
these efforts with help from the director of family services for Amber’s tribe
(the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel), whom the agency contacted seeking “help
and input throughout the proceedings.” (Ibid.)
In this case, the record contains evidence of the department’s active
efforts to connect mother with services it recommended. Some of these efforts
were initially met with resistance from mother. From the outset of the
dependency proceeding, mother did not want the department to notify her
tribe because she believed “the tribe was not helping them.” In fact, mother
had left North Dakota because she wanted a new start for the family.
Nonetheless, the department took steps after mother confirmed the children’s
Indian heritage to comply with the procedures required by ICWA and
California law (see Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1129 [describing

42
“minimum standards for state courts to follow before removing Indian
children from their families” and states’ authority to “establish[] higher
standards”]) and sought to identify individuals and tribal resources who could
help support mother.
More specifically, the record reflects that the department—concurrent
with its efforts to provide mother with local resources to address her needs
for substance abuse treatment, psychiatric and counseling support, parenting
classes, and job training—tried to identify culturally relevant resources and
support persons from within the tribe. Inter alia, the department social
worker Rodriguez connected mother in May with the department’s ICWA
social worker who provided mother with counseling and other resources, both
by e-mail and over the phone, and told her that she could reach out to her if
she had questions or needed additional support. Tribal representative and
ICWA coordinator, Marie Martin, participated in the initial detention
hearing and throughout the proceeding; however, Martin was unable to
identify any ICWA compliant or tribal placements for the children.
Rodriguez also spoke with the Spirit Lake tribe’s director of social
services regarding contact information for the children’s father and any
Native American services or resources—including AA meetings or parenting
classes held virtually—but received no response regarding resources.
Rodriguez asked the same questions of the interim director of tribal social
services for the Spirit Lake tribe, who responded that the tribe was not able
to do anything for mother because mother refused to work with them.
Another member of the Spirit Lake tribe, Ms. Murphy, offered her support for
mother and told department social worker Rodriguez that mother “can call
her ‘day or night.’ ” Nevertheless, Ms. Murphy was similarly unaware of any
tribal services or culturally relevant classes or resources that might be

43
available to mother. These individuals also confirmed that maternal
grandmother was not a potential placement for the children because she was
residing with a registered sex offender.
When mother had not begun counseling as of mid-September,
department social worker Rodriguez offered to call the Indian Health Center
with her to schedule the counseling and to obtain a doctor, but mother
indicated that she still had the number and would call (which mother did).
Mother had previously received counseling resources in May and had
“indicated she would call on her own.” Therefore, Rodriguez and the ICWA
social worker did not attempt to make calls with her. Mother did not ask for
additional support.
Mother asserts that these were not active efforts and the department
should have been more proactive in connecting her with rehabilitative and
culturally relevant services. Mother suggests that the department could have
placed her in an inpatient or outpatient program that might have allowed the
children to remain safely with her, and been more involved in mother’s
rehabilitative activities by “accompany[ing] her to intakes, . . . offer[ing]
special funds to expedite therapy or provide cultural substance use or grief
supports,” and providing “culturally tailored services, tribal-specific
programs, or involvement of tribal service providers to address [] mother’s
needs while engaging her in treatment and testing.” Mother argues that
when she suffered the mini stroke, the department made no accommodation
(such as in-home drug testing, or virtual visits) and criticizes the department
for failing to identify relatives of mother or the children for potential
placement consistent with ICWA’s mandate.
The standard for active efforts is not whether the department could
have theoretically done more (see A.L., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 645

44
[“Although the Agency might have done more to assist Amber, its efforts in
this case satisfied ICWA and state law requirements”]), but whether the
department assists the parent through the steps of the case plan and with
accessing the resources needed to satisfy the plan. (§ 224.1, subd. (f); K.B.,
supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287.) We therefore do not examine the record
based on ideal circumstances where there exist robust, culturally relevant
service offerings for the department to offer. Instead, we evaluate active
efforts “on a case-by-case basis” and utilizing “the available resources of the
Indian child’s extended family, tribe, tribal and other Indian social service
agencies.” (§ 361.7, subd. (b).) Active efforts must be “affirmative, active,
thorough, and timely efforts” but also “tailored to the facts and circumstances
of the case.” (§ 224.1, subd. (f).)
The department social worker looked for “cultural services that are for
substance abuse” online, asked the department’s ICWA expert, and asked
several individuals with the Spirit Lake tribe. She found no tailored services
available that could be delivered remotely. When she and the ICWA social
worker offered mother additional support in connecting with counseling
services, including at the Indian Health Center, mother informed them that
she could do it herself. Mother was not interested in seeking support from
her tribe, as she believed the tribe had not helped her and the children.
Although mother suffered health setbacks such as the minor stroke and
deaths in her family, she did not immediately inform the department when
those occurred, did not provide Rodriguez with discharge papers or
documentation from the hospital so the department could assess if she
required any accommodations, and did not respond to offers for additional
support in connecting with case services.

45
We recognize that, apart from connecting mother with counseling at
the Indian Health Center, the department’s efforts to identify ICWA-
compliant placements for the children and culturally relevant services for
mother were not fruitful. Nevertheless, this outcome does not mean the
department failed to meet its burden to show “active efforts have been made
to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent
the breakup of the Indian family.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(d); § 361.7, subd. (a).)
The record contains detailed documentation of outreach to tribal
representatives and at least one tribal support person identified by mother,
as well as efforts to procure ICWA services locally through the ICWA social
worker and by connecting mother to the Indian Health Center. (§ 361.7,
subd. (a).)
The complex dynamics presented by the children’s special needs and
challenges the department faced in identifying potential relative, tribal, or
ICWA compatible placements, as well as mother’s reticence to engage the
Spirit Lake Nation for help and apparent preference (expressed on several
occasions) to follow up directly with resources, rather than have the social
worker assist, are relevant considerations in ascertaining active efforts. We
conclude that, despite the limited availability of ICWA and culturally
relevant resources available to mother, the department undertook active
efforts (affirmative, thorough, and timely) to connect mother with the
resources that were available and enable the return of the children to
mother’s custody at the disposition hearing. (§§ 361.7, subd. (b), 224.1, subd.
(f)).) We decide the juvenile court did not err in concluding that the
department met its burden to make active efforts under ICWA and
California-ICWA.

46
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s October 24, 2025 jurisdiction and disposition order
is affirmed.

47
______________________________________
Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________
Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________________
Adams, J.

H053805
In re V.M. et al.; Santa Clara County DFCS v. D.W.