California Supreme Court Watch

#22-254 In re Dezi C., S275578. (B317935; 79 Cal.App.5th 769; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19CCJP08030.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding. This case presents the following issue: What constitutes reversible error when a child welfare agency fails to make the statutorily required inquiry concerning a child’s potential Indian ancestry?

Petition for review granted: 9/21/2022

Case fully briefed: 2/06/2023

Cause argued and submitted: 6/04/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 8/19/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112.)

“We are tasked with determining whether a child welfare agency’s failure to make the statutorily required initial inquiry under California’s heightened ICWA requirements constitutes reversible error. California courts have reached differing conclusions on this issue, and we granted review to resolve this conflict. ICWA and Cal-ICWA are unique statutory schemes that are intended to protect Native American heritage, cultural connections between tribes and children of Native American ancestry, the best interests of Indian children, and the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. (See In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7–8 (Isaiah W.); 25 U.S.C. § 1902; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224, subd. (a).) When there is an inadequate inquiry and the record is underdeveloped, it is impossible for reviewing courts to assess prejudice because we simply do not know what additional information will be revealed from an adequate inquiry. We therefore hold that an inadequate Cal-ICWA inquiry requires conditional reversal of the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights with directions to the agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal with directions to conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.”

Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, and Jenkins concurred.

Justice Kruger filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Corrigan concurred.

Justice Groban filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Guerrero concurred.