Background
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of four-year-old K.L. after his mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. K.L. was removed from his mother’s custody and placed with a maternal aunt. His father, J.A., did not appear until nearly two years into the proceedings, was eventually granted reunification services, but ultimately had those services terminated after his participation declined. The juvenile court terminated parental rights in August 2025.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and its California counterpart, DCFS has an affirmative duty to inquire whether a child in dependency proceedings may be an Indian child. DCFS interviewed both parents, the paternal grandmother, the maternal aunt, the maternal uncle, a family friend, and service providers—all of whom denied Indian ancestry. The one extended family member DCFS could not reach was the maternal grandmother: her phone number was disconnected, and the maternal aunt declined to share contact information without the grandmother’s permission.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights, holding that DCFS’s initial ICWA inquiry was adequate even though the maternal grandmother was never contacted. Applying the substantial evidence standard from In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, the court held that DCFS is only required to contact extended family members who are “reasonably available.”
The court found the maternal grandmother was not reasonably available: her phone was disconnected, the maternal aunt refused to share her contact information without consent, and DCFS had no other reliable way to locate her. The court declined to impose a duty on DCFS to independently track down family members who are not involved in the proceedings and for whom no good contact information exists, or to “hound” relatives who promise to provide information but fail to follow through.
Key Takeaways
- Under In re Dezi C., a juvenile court’s finding that DCFS conducted an adequate ICWA initial inquiry is reviewed for substantial evidence, with deference to the court’s fact-specific determination.
- DCFS is obligated to contact only those extended family members who are “reasonably available” for ICWA inquiries; it need not independently track down relatives who are uninvolved in the proceedings and unreachable.
- When a family member declines to share another relative’s contact information and fails to follow through on a promise to do so, DCFS is not required to repeatedly pursue that lead.
- Interviewing the parents, all known paternal relatives, and most known maternal relatives was sufficient, even though one maternal relative (the grandmother) could not be contacted.
Why It Matters
This case provides practical guidance on the limits of DCFS’s ICWA inquiry obligations, which are a frequent source of appeals in dependency cases. Following the California Supreme Court’s framework in In re Dezi C., the court confirms that the “reasonably available” standard is a meaningful limitation—agencies are not expected to launch independent investigations to locate family members who have no involvement in the case and cannot be reached through normal channels.
For dependency practitioners, this opinion offers a concrete example of what constitutes sufficient ICWA inquiry effort: when an agency has contacted the parents and nearly all known extended family members, and the one unreached relative is genuinely unreachable through available means, the inquiry satisfies statutory requirements. This should help attorneys and social workers assess when their ICWA due diligence is complete.