Filed 8/6/26 In re R.P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re R.P., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087392
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J292206)
v. OPINION
A.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Mansi Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant A.M. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s denial of her
request to change a court order wherein she sought reinstatement of reunification services
with her seven-year-old son, R.P. (born in September 2018, hereafter Minor). Mother’s
sole contention on appeal is that plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County
Children and Family Services (CFS) and the juvenile court failed to discharge their
statutory duty of further inquiry pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA).1 We affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2022, CFS detained Minor and filed a petition pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code2 section 300 after Minor, who was then three-years-old, was found
walking in the street soaking wet with a full diaper. Minor had been found alone in
public on two prior occasions, including once in the middle of the street. The court
ordered that Minor be removed from Mother and Father3 and declared him a dependent
child of the court.
For reasons not relevant to this appeal, Minor was placed with at least four
different nonrelative extended family members (NREFM) or foster homes since his
1 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even
though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are
preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1.)
2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
specified otherwise.
3 In 2019, Minor was removed from Father; Mother was granted sole legal
custody and primary physical custody. Father is not a party to this appeal.
2
removal from Mother. A selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section
366.26 was set for August 2023, however the hearing did not proceed because Minor was
not a proper subject for adoption and a potential legal guardian had not been identified.
As of August 2025, the juvenile court had not set another section 366.26 hearing.
Mother’s reunification services were terminated in April 2023. In April 2025, the
court ordered that Mother would receive additional reunification services, including
individual counseling and domestic violence classes.
In its report dated August 11, 2025, CFS noted that Mother’s drug test results were
a mix of negative and “no show,” that Mother had tardiness and attendance issues with
her therapist, and that Mother was consistently late for her visits with Minor. On August
11, 2025, the court terminated Mother’s services.
On October 6, 2025, Mother filed a request to change court order pursuant to
section 388 to resume reunification services based on changed circumstances, including
that she completed all parts of her case plan and had secured housing. CFS scheduled an
in-person interview with Mother for October 21, 2025, in connection with her section 388
request, however Mother arrived 15 minutes late and at the wrong office. The interview
was switched to telephone and it appeared that Mother was being coached by her friend,
who was answering the questions for Mother. Mother’s drug testing reflected a positive
result for amphetamines in July 2025 and “no shows” for all subsequent tests.
On October 31, 2025, the court denied Mother’s section 388 request based on a
lack of changed circumstances and the request not being in the best interests of Minor.
Mother timely appealed the denial.
3
A. MOTHER’S STATEMENTS REGARDING ICWA AND JUVENILE
COURT’S ICWA ORDERS
Mother stated in her February 2022 initial interview with CFS that ICWA may
apply. At the detention hearing in February 2022, Mother stated on the record that
paternal great-grandmother had Seminole ancestry, but that both paternal great-
grandmother and Mother’s father were deceased. Mother stated that her father’s sisters
could speak to CFS, and the court ordered her to provide their contact information to
CFS. Mother was not herself an enrolled member of the tribe.
In February 2022, Mother completed an ICWA-020 form indicating that she is or
may be a member of the Seminole tribe. She also completed a CFS form wherein she
stated that she has or may have Native American ancestry, and listed Ju.G. and Jo.G. as
“relatives who know of Native American ancestry information.” She did not provide
contact information for Ju.G. or Jo.G., other than the cities in Oregon in which they
reside.
In March 2022, when interviewed by CFS, Mother stated that she does not have
Native American ancestry because her paternal aunts had a different father than her
father, and that her aunts’ Native American ancestry was through their father. In April
2022, the juvenile court found that Minor did not come under the provisions of ICWA.
Between April 2022 and March 2025, Mother denied having Native American
ancestry at least four more times when interviewed by CFS.
On March 31, 2025, in response to CFS’s inquiry, Mother stated that her father
may have had Native American ancestry but that she did not have further information.
4
Mother stated that her aunt might have more information, but she did not have her aunt’s
telephone number.
In April 2025, the dependency court orally ordered that “Inquiry under ICWA is to
continue.” The minute order of the April 2025 hearing does not reference ICWA
explicitly but states that “Department is ordered to continue to comply with its duty of
inquiry.” (All caps. omitted.) It also reflects that the court adopted the findings and
orders “as amended listed on page(s) 16-21 of the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report dated
04/03/2025.” (All caps. omitted.) Page 16 of the April 3, 2025, Jurisdiction/Report
originally stated “[Minor] does not come under the provisions of ICWA,” but
handwritten changes were made such that the section now states “Inquiry under the
provisions of ICWA to” followed by a circled letter “c.”
In Mother’s October 6, 2025, request to change court order, where the form JV-
180 asks for “Indian tribe,” Mother wrote, “Not Applicable.”
B. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS REGARDING ICWA
Father stated in his initial interview with CFS in February 2022 that ICWA does
not apply. CFS attempted to contact Father again in July 2025, but the telephone calls to
him were answered, then quickly hung up.
Maternal grandmother stated on two different occasions to CFS in 2022 that
ICWA does not apply. Telephone calls from CFS to maternal grandmother in July 2025
were not answered and not returned.
In July 2024, Minor’s then-caregiver (NREFM) stated that there is no Native
American ancestry in the family.
5
In August 2024, paternal grandmother stated there is no Native American ancestry
in the family.
In March 2025, Mother’s brother denied any knowledge of having Native
American ancestry.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the juvenile court and CFS did not conduct an adequate
further inquiry pursuant to ICWA after she indicated that she may have Seminole
ancestry, and specifically that CFS did not contact any federally recognized Seminole
tribes.
“ICWA establishes minimum standards for state courts to follow before removing
Indian children from their families and placing them in foster care or adoptive homes.”
(In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1129.) Pursuant to California’s implementation of
ICWA, the juvenile court and CFS “have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire
whether a child for whom a petition under Section 300, 601, or 602 may be or has been
filed, is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).)
The “continuing duty” has three phases: “the initial duty to inquire, the duty of
further inquiry, and the duty to provide formal ICWA notice.” (In re D.F. (2020) 55
Cal.App.5th 558, 566.) The duty of further inquiry is triggered when there is “reason to
believe that an Indian child is involved.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) “CFS does not discharge
their duty of further inquiry until they make a ‘meaningful effort’ to locate and interview
extended family members and to contact [the Bureau of Indian Affairs] and the tribes.”
(In re K.T. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 732, 744.)
6
Before addressing Mother’s contention regarding inadequate ICWA inquiry, we
must consider CFS’s argument that Mother’s appeal is not ripe. “The ripeness
requirement, a branch of the doctrine of justiciability, prevents courts from issuing purely
advisory opinions.” (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33
Cal.3d 158, 170.) In order to be ripe, the issues raised must be “sufficiently concrete to
allow judicial resolution even in the absence of a precise factual context.” (Ibid.)
The question of whether the ICWA inquiry has been satisfied is not a justiciable
controversy until the juvenile court makes a “final ruling” about the applicability of
ICWA. (In re J.J. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 447, 461 (J.J.).) In J.J., the reviewing court
held that the mother’s ICWA claim was premature and not ripe because “the dependency
case is still ongoing” and thus “any perceived deficiencies with ICWA inquiry and
noticing may still be resolved during the normal course of the ongoing dependency
proceedings.” (Id. at p. 461.)
The juvenile court here did not make any ICWA findings when denying Mother’s
section 388 petition. It was not required to do so at that point in the proceedings. (In re
N.F. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 170, 180 [denial of section 388 petition for reinstatement of
reunification services does not implicate ICWA because it is not an “Indian child custody
proceeding” as defined in section 224.1, subdivision (d)(1)].) The juvenile court’s
current ICWA order from April 2025 is that the inquiry shall continue. Mother’s parental
rights have not been terminated, and a section 366.26 hearing to potentially terminate her
parental rights or establish a legal guardianship is not presently set. Contrary to Mother’s
7
assertions, there is no current finding from the juvenile court that ICWA does not apply.
There is no order for us to reverse, thus there is no controversy that is ripe for review.
It is true that the court originally made a finding that ICWA did not apply in April
2022, after Mother stated that her father did not have Native American ancestry.
However, in April 2025, following Mother’s statement that her father may have had
Native American ancestry, the court’s finding was modified to order the ICWA inquiry to
continue. Although we do not agree with Mother that the April 3, 2025, minute order and
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report are ambiguous or require speculation with respect to the
court’s ICWA orders, any potential ambiguity is resolved by the reporter’s transcript
wherein the juvenile court clearly stated that the ICWA inquiry is to continue. (See
People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599 [when the record is in conflict, “it will be
harmonized if possible”].)
We also do not agree with Mother that the court was required to expressly state
that it was vacating, withdrawing, or amending its prior ICWA finding. Mother does not
supply any authority in support of the concept that the court must explicitly use the words
“modify” or “amend” to revise its prior findings. In fact, the juvenile court is required to
modify its prior ICWA finding if new information is supplied. (§ 224.2, subd. (i)(2)
[“The court shall reverse its determination if it subsequently receives information
providing reason to believe that the child is an Indian child and order the social worker . .
. to conduct further inquiry.”].) Although not stated in express terms, the juvenile
court’s April 3, 2025, orders impliedly reverse the prior ICWA finding and, consistent
with section 224.2, subdivision (i)(2), require further inquiry. CFS is clearly aware of its
8
duty to conduct its further ICWA inquiry, as it continued to seek ICWA information from
Mother and other family members in 2025.
Contrary to Mother’s claims, she does not have to “wait until parental rights have
been terminated” to seek appellate relief of an ICWA inquiry issue. She may, for
example, file a petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 upon the court
setting a section 366.26 hearing. However, in any instance, she would need for there to
be an adverse ICWA ruling by the juvenile court for her to challenge on appeal, which at
this time does not exist.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
9