California Supreme Court Watch

#23-153 In re Ja.O., S280572. (E079651; 91 Cal.App.5th 672; San Bernardino County Superior Court; J291035.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the duty of a child welfare agency to inquire of extended family members and others about a child’s potential Indian ancestry apply to children who are taken into custody under a protective custody warrant?

Petition for review granted: 7/26/2023

Case fully briefed: 3/11/2024

Supplemental briefing ordered: 10/23/2024

Supplemental briefing complete: 11/26/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/06/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 8/04/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (In re Ja.O (2025) 18 Cal.5th 271.)

“We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter to the juvenile court for compliance with the inquiry requirements of section 224.2, consistent with this opinion. If the juvenile court thereafter finds the inquiry duty has been satisfied and ICWA does not apply, the court shall reinstate the jurisdiction and disposition order. If the juvenile court concludes ICWA applies, it shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and California implementing provisions. (See In re Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141.)”

Justice Jenkins authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Groban, and Evans concurred.

Justice Liu filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kruger concurred.