Filed 8/27/26 In re V.M. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re V.M., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G066526

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24DP0469)

C.M., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Michael T. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.
Mansi Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Chloe R.
Maksoudian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
 C.M. (Mother) is the mother of V.M. (the child), who was taken
into protective custody in April 2024 at the age of 15. Mother appeals from
the order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivisions (b) and (c).1
Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Orange County
Social Services Agency (the Agency) did not adequately document its efforts
to comply with the duty of further inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare
Act, 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. (ICWA) and section 224.2,
subdivision (e).2 We conclude an interim review report prepared by the
Agency and admitted into evidence by stipulation, adequately documented
the Agency’s ICWA compliance efforts and imparted information sufficient to
support the juvenile court’s ICWA findings. The Agency was not required to
also submit copies of its tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) inquiries,
the certified mail receipts, or the tribes’ and the BIA’s responses to the court.
We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD WELFARE PROCEEDINGS3
In April 2024, the Agency removed the child from Mother and

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

2 “The language of both federal and state law uses the term

‘Indian.’ California courts have used alternative terms, such as ‘American
Indian’ or ‘Native American’; we use the term ‘Indian’ throughout to reflect
the statutory language . . . . No disrespect is intended.” (In re Dezi C. (2024)
16 Cal.5th 1112, 1125, fn. 1 (Dezi C.).)

3 This overview is limited in scope as its purpose is only to

provide context to the single issue presented by this appeal.

2
placed the child with the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt.
The Agency subsequently filed a child welfare petition alleging
failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)), serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd.
(c)), and no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). At the jurisdiction hearing
in June 2024, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be
true by a preponderance of the evidence. A month later, at the disposition
hearing, the juvenile court declared the child to be a dependent child of the
court and found by clear and convincing evidence that removal from Mother’s
custody was necessary. The court granted Mother reunification services and
supervised visitation.
At the 12-month review hearing in July 2025, the juvenile court
terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. At the
section 366.26 hearing, the court found the child to be adoptable and ordered
adoption as the permanent plan.
II.
FACTS RELATED TO ICWA
At the outset of the child welfare proceedings, Mother and
maternal aunt reported having Cherokee ancestry. Mother told the intake
social worker the child’s great-great-grandmother was Cherokee but did not
have enough Cherokee ancestry to receive “benefits.” The maternal aunt told
the intake social worker she “was about 4 [percent] Native American” and
knew the great-great grandmother was Cherokee. Maternal grandmother
reported she “had a percentage of Native American heritage with Cherokee
but was not aff[iliated] with a tribe.” The child also reported having Indian
ancestry. Mother also indicated on an ICWA-020 form possible Cherokee
ancestry. At the detention hearing in April 2024, the juvenile court deferred

3
making an ICWA finding and ordered the Agency to continue its ICWA
inquiry.
Over the next several months, the assigned social worker
contacted the child, Mother, maternal grandmother, a maternal aunt, and the
child’s alleged father (Father) to inquire further about the child’s possible
Indian ancestry. Maternal grandmother again claimed Cherokee ancestry.
Maternal grandmother reported she was not enrolled in a tribe and the
Cherokee ancestry came from the late maternal great-grandfather’s side of
the family. Maternal grandmother provided the maternal great-grandfather’s
full name and place of death. According to maternal grandmother, the
maternal great-grandfather was not enrolled in a tribe. Maternal
grandmother reported maternal aunt was not enrolled in a tribe.
Maternal grandmother also claimed the maternal great-great-
grandmother, who was deceased, had Cherokee ancestry but had not been
enrolled in a tribe. Maternal grandmother did not know the maternal great-
great-grandmother’s full name, date and place of birth, or date and place of
death. Maternal grandmother said she would search for more information
and notify the social worker of any. Maternal grandmother lived with
maternal aunt and provided the social worker her date and place of birth.
The maternal grandmother later provided the social worker with
the maternal great-grandfather’s date and place of birth and date of death,
and the maternal great-great-grandmother’s full name, place of birth, date
and place of death, and possible maiden names. Maternal grandmother did
not know the maternal great-great-grandmother’s date of birth. Maternal
grandmother also claimed that the maternal great-grandmother, who was
deceased, had Indian ancestry but did not know the tribe. Maternal
grandmother provided the social worker with the maternal great-

4
grandmother’s full name, maiden name, date and place of birth, and date and
place of death. Maternal grandmother did not have any additional
information about Indian ancestry and did not identify any other relatives
who might know of such. Father reported no known Indian ancestry.
Based on the information provided by maternal grandmother and
maternal aunt, the Agency concluded there was reason to believe the child
might be an Indian child and further inquiry would be conducted.
In April 2024, the assigned social worker reviewed the BIA’s list
of designated tribal agents from the Federal Register and identified three
potentially relevant tribes: (1) Cherokee Nation, (2) Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, and (3) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in
Oklahoma. In May 2024, the social worker sent ICWA inquiries both by e-
mail and certified mail to the agents of those three tribes and to the BIA’s
Pacific Regional Office director. Each ICWA inquiry included “information on
the family’s Native American ancestry and a family tree.”
Within a day, the Agency received a response from the Cherokee
Nation, which reported the child was not eligible for enrollment in the tribe.
About a month later, the Agency also received a response from the Eastern
Band of Cherokee, which reported the child was not eligible for enrollment in
the tribe, and in mid-June, the Agency received a response from the United
Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, which likewise reported
the child was not eligible for enrollment in the tribe.
From July 2024 through July 2025, the social worker periodically
contacted Mother, maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, and the child, to
ask again whether any had any new information pertaining to the family’s
Indian ancestry. None of them had additional information to report. The

5
social worker tried to contact Father for the same purpose but as of August
11, 2025, had not received a response from him.
The Agency’s interim review report dated August 11, 2025 (the
August 11, 2025 report) included a 14-page report on the Agency’s ICWA
inquiry. Mother stipulated to the admission of the August 11, 2025 report at
the ICWA review hearing of that date and did not object to any of its
contents.
At the hearing on August 11, 2025, the juvenile court reviewed
the August 11, 2025 report and took judicial notice of the court file. The court
found the ICWA inquiry conducted by the Agency was “proper, adequate, and
duly diligent” and that “there is no reason to know the child is an Indian
Child.” The court found ICWA did not apply but the Agency had an
affirmative and continuing duty of inquiry.
DISCUSSION
I.
OVERVIEW OF ICWA INQUIRY REQUIREMENTS AND
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“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. . . .” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1129.) The
juvenile court and the county welfare department “have an affirmative and
continuing duty to inquire whether a child” who is the subject of a child
welfare petition “is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) ICWA and
related California law impose on the juvenile court and a county welfare
agency a duty to inquire, a duty of further inquiry, and a duty to provide
ICWA notice. (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 1131–1133.)

6
 The duty to inquire “begins with the initial contact” and includes
“asking a party reporting child abuse or neglect whether the party has any
information that the child may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b)(1).)
“Section 224.2, subdivision (b) specifies that once a child is placed into the
temporary custody of a county welfare department, the duty to inquire
‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian,
Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in
the child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is,
or may be, an Indian child.’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1132.)
The duty of further inquiry arises if the court or social worker
“has reason to believe that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding.”
(§ 224.2, subd. (e).) This duty of further inquiry includes (1) interviewing
parents and extended family members to gather certain information,
(2) “[c]ontacting the [BIA] and the State Department of Social Services for
assistance in identifying the . . . tribes in which the child may be a
member . . . or eligible for membership,” and (3) “[c]ontacting the tribe or
tribes and any other person [who] may reasonably be expected to have
information regarding the child’s membership, citizenship status, or
eligibility.” (Id., subd. (e)(2)(A)–(C); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4)
[same requirements].) Contact with a tribe includes “sharing information
identified by the tribe as necessary for the tribe to make a membership or
eligibility determination, as well as information on the current status of the
child and the case.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(c).)
The duty to provide ICWA notice is triggered if, after the duty of
inquiry and of further inquiry are satisfied, the court or the county welfare
agency “knows or has reason to know . . . that an Indian child is involved” in
the child welfare proceedings. (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) Notice pursuant to ICWA

7
must be given to the tribes identified through inquiry to enable them “‘to
determine whether the child involved in a dependency proceeding is an
Indian child and, if so, whether to intervene in, or exercise jurisdiction over,
the matter.’” (Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1133.)
We review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings under the
substantial evidence standard. (In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 774; see
§ 224.2, subd. (i)(2).) Under that standard, we review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the court’s ICWA findings and draw all reasonable
inferences in their support. (In re J.N., at p. 774.) We review for abuse of
discretion the juvenile court’s finding that the Agency’s ICWA inquiry was
adequate, proper, and duly diligent. (In re C.L. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 53, 66;
see Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141 [“the juvenile court’s fact-specific
determination that an inquiry is adequate, proper, and duly diligent is ‘a
quintessentially discretionary function’”].)
II.
THE AGENCY PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT
SATISFIED ITS ICWA DUTY OF FURTHER INQUIRY
Mother acknowledges the Agency satisfied its obligations under
the duty of inquiry, and the Agency acknowledges it had a duty of further
inquiry. Mother argues the Agency did not produce sufficient evidence to
prove it satisfied its obligations imposed by the duty of further inquiry
because the Agency did not submit or include in its reports actual copies of
the e-mail and letter inquiries sent to the BIA and the three Cherokee tribes,
the certified mail receipts, and the BIA’s and the tribes’ responses to those
inquiries.
In finding ICWA did not apply, the juvenile court reviewed and
relied upon the August 11, 2025 report, which included a detailed 14-page

8
section on the Agency’s efforts to satisfy its ICWA inquiry duties. A social
worker’s reports generally are admissible and competent proof, even if they
contain hearsay.4 (See In re M.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1069–1071; In
re Jonique W. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 685, 698 [“[g]enerally speaking,” a social
worker’s report containing hearsay “is competent and admissible proof” in a
child welfare proceeding]; see also § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(C) [at permanency
hearing “the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and
recommendations”].) Mother stipulated to the admission of the August 11,
2025 report without objection to any of its contents and did not ask for the
report’s preparer to be made available for cross-examination at the ICWA
review hearing.
The August 11, 2025 report constitutes substantial evidence
supporting the juvenile’s court’s ICWA findings. That report identified each
person interviewed by the Agency (including Mother, Father, maternal
grandmother, maternal aunt, and the child), documented each of the
numerous instances in which the Agency interviewed them, provided detailed
information about each person interviewed,5 and for each person interviewed

4 At the jurisdiction hearing, a social worker’s report is competent

and admissible evidence if the report’s preparer is made available for cross-
examination upon a party’s timely request. (§ 355, subd. (b).) Here, the
juvenile court did not make its ICWA finding at the jurisdiction hearing;
nonetheless, Mother did not request the preparer of the August 11, 2025
report be made available for the ICWA review hearing.

5 The report documents Mother’s full name, date and place of

birth, address, phone number, and possible Cherokee affiliation; Father’s full
name, date of birth, address; maternal grandmother’s full name, date and
place of birth, address, phone number, and noted possible Cherokee ancestry;
the maternal great-grandmother’s full name, former name, date and place of
birth, and date and place of death; the maternal great-grandfather’s full
name, date and place of birth, date and place of death, and noted possible

9
provided a summary of information received about potential Indian ancestry.
The report gave detailed information on the Agency’s review of the BIA’s
resources, the names of the three Cherokee tribes and their agents obtained
from that review, and the contact information for each agent. The report
established that in May and June 2024, the social worker sent ICWA
inquiries both by e-mail and certified mail to the three Cherokee tribes and
the BIA Pacific Regional Office. As to each of the three tribes, the report
noted the Agency has received a response “indicating that the child was not
eligible for enrollment with the tribe.”
The Agency was not required to submit actual copies of the
Agency’s e-mail inquiries, inquiry letters, certified mail receipts, and
responses from the tribes. Section 224.2, which governs the duties of initial
inquiry and further inquiry, has no requirement of producing or filing inquiry
letters, return receipts, or responses with the court. “[S]ection 224.2,
subdivision (e) does not require that the [Agency] report its [ICWA] inquiry
efforts to the juvenile court in the form of a declaration or in any particular
form at all.” (In re M.W. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1046.) In contrast, when
ICWA notice is given pursuant to section 224.3, section 224.3, subdivision (c)
expressly requires that “[p]roof of the notice, including copies of the notices
sent and all return receipts and responses received, shall be filed with the
court in advance of the hearing . . .” (§ 224.3, subd. (c); see Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 5.482(b) [“Proof of notice . . . must be filed with the court in
advance of the hearing . . . and must include . . . return receipts, and any

Cherokee ancestry; the maternal aunt’s full name, date and place of birth,
address, phone number, and noted possible Cherokee ancestry; and the
maternal great-great-grandmother’s full name, former name, place of birth,
approximate date and place of death, and noted possible Cherokee ancestry.

10
responses received from the [BIA] and tribes”].) Mother does not contend
there was “reason to know” the child was an Indian child that would have
triggered the duty to provide ICWA notice under section 224.3.
Mother argues that without the documentation she claims the
Agency should have provided, the juvenile court could not have determined
whether the ICWA inquiries were sent to the BIA and the correct tribes and
contained sufficient and accurate information. The August 11, 2025 report
reflects that the Agency reviewed the BIA list of designated tribal agents
and, from that list, identified Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, and United Keetoowah Band in Oklahoma as potentially relevant.
Mother does not identify any other tribe that the Agency should have
contacted. The child’s relatives identified only Cherokee as the source of
possible Indian ancestry. The August 11, 2025 report provided that for each
tribe, the Agency sent ICWA inquiries which included “information on the
family’s Native American ancestry and a family tree.” It is reasonable to infer
the information provided to the tribes was the information obtained from the
child’s family members, which was described in the August 11, 2025 report
and prior Agency reports. (In re J.N., supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 774 [all
reasonable inferences are drawn in support of ICWA findings].)
The August 11, 2025 report indicates a response had been
received from each tribe and the BIA. A reasonable inference from the
Agency’s receipt of those responses is the ICWA inquiries had been sent to
the correct addresses and/or e-mail addresses for the correct tribes and the
BIA. None of the tribes identified any additional information that would have
been necessary for the tribe “to make a membership or eligibility
determination.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(c).) The August 11, 2025 report thus
provided sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s ICWA findings,

11
and the juvenile court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding the
Agency’s ICWA inquiry “proper, adequate, and duly diligent.”
Our conclusion is supported by other decisions addressing the
nature and sufficiency of the documentation necessary to prove compliance
with ICWA inquiry requirements. (See, e.g., In re M.W., supra,
49 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1045–1046 [rejecting father’s challenge to the county
welfare department’s documentation of further inquiry efforts and finding
“section 224.2, subdivision (e) does not require that the [county welfare]
department report its inquiry efforts to the juvenile court in the form of a
declaration or in any particular form at all”]; In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th
1041, 1054 [the Agency’s addendum report contained sufficient information to
support the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply]; In re H.M.
(2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1171, 1184 [rejecting the mother’s claim the
documentation in the Agency addendum reports of further inquiry was
inadequate].)
Mother cites In re E.C. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 123 and describes it
as similar to the present case. In E.C., the mother reported Apache ancestry
and testified the maternal great-grandmother and two maternal great-uncles
were enrolled members of the Apache tribe. (Id at p. 147.) Although this
information triggered the duty of further inquiry, the record contained no
documentation as to whom the Agency may have directed ICWA inquiries
and what responses, if any were received. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal
concluded that because the Agency failed to conduct a further inquiry and
document the results, the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply
was not supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at pp. 147–148.) Here, in
sharp contrast, the Agency provided a detailed, 14-page report documenting
its further inquiry under ICWA.

12
 DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order terminating parental rights and placing
the child for adoption is affirmed.

MOTOIKE, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DELANEY, J.

SCOTT, J.

13