Family Law
Recent Dependency Cases
DEPENDENCY LAW (Through 2/10/2026)
By: Julie A. McCormick, CWLS
The precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Author’s note is italicized.
Appeals; Mootness; CACI—Pen. Code, § 11169 –11170
In re S.R.—published 12/1/25; California Supreme Court
Docket No. S285759; 18 Cal.5th 1042
https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S285759.PDF
AN APPEAL OF A JURISDICTIONAL FINDING AFTER TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION IS NOT MOOT IF IT WOULD LEAD TO A CACI REPORT.
The family came to the agency’s attention after an altercation between mother and her daughters. Several days prior to the incident, mother told her 22-year-old daughter to move out of the home. The 16-year-old child left with her older sister. The two older children then briefly took the 12-year-old, who has special needs, without permission and proceeded to confront mother. A witness described the older daughters standing “like they were trying to fight” mother. Another witness reported the daughters “kept saying they wanted to get back in the house and they wanted [mother] to leave, like a take over.” Mother brandished a knife and made threats to her older daughters. The 16-year-old reported mother struck her with a shovel and injured her torso. The agency removed the younger two daughters. Following the initial hearing, the middle daughter recanted, reporting she caused the mark on her torso at her older sister’s direction and that mother accidentally hit her when she attempted to intervene between mother and the oldest child. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition and removed the children from mother’s care. Mother timely appealed. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court returned the children to mother’s care and terminated jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed mother’s appeal as moot, despite mother’s argument that the jurisdictional allegation was reportable to the Department of Justice for inclusion in California’s Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). The Supreme Court granted review.
Reversed as to the order dismissing mother’s appeal as moot. A case becomes moot when the court cannot provide appellant with any effective relief. Relief is effective where (1) appellant shows ongoing harm and (2) a decision in appellant’s favor can rectify that harm. Even after termination of jurisdiction, a jurisdictional finding remains subject to challenge if it formed the basis for an order that continues to impact a parent’s rights. Because the sustained allegation of physical abuse was reportable for inclusion in the CACI, mother demonstrated ongoing harm. There was no dispute that the agency had a duty under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) to report mother for inclusion in the CACI, which lists individuals with substantiated reports of child abuse or severe neglect. Courts presume that an agency has or will report allegations subject to CACI inclusion. Thus, mother’s possible inclusion in the CACI was not speculative, in contrast to In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, in which the parent failed to show the general neglect allegation was reportable (or had been reported) for CACI inclusion.
Mother further demonstrated reversal of the jurisdictional finding could lead to CACI removal or preserve her right to a grievance hearing on continued inclusion in the CACI, fulfilling the second prong of the mootness analysis. It remains unresolved whether conduct that leads to possible – but not certain – inclusion in the CACI survives a mootness challenge, although appellate courts retain discretion to review a case on the merits even when it is moot.
Concurring opinion rejected the agency’s argument that mother’s conduct remained reportable for CACI inclusion even if she acted in self-defense. Lawful self-defense cannot support inclusion in the CACI.
ICWA – WIC 224.2
In re K.G. – filed 12/23/2025; Second Appellate Dist., Div. Eight
Docket: B344654; 117 Cal.App.5th 379
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B344654.PDF
ICWA INQUIRY WITH THE PARENTS, TEN FAMILY MEMBERS, AND A FAMILY FRIEND – WHILE FOUR OTHER EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS FOR WHOM THE AGENCY HAD CONTACT INFORMATION REMAIN UNCONTACTED – SATISFIES THE DUTY OF INQUIRY.
The agency filed a 300 petition due to the parents’ domestic violence, father’s criminal history, and mother’s untreated mental illness. The juvenile court removed the child from the parents and ordered reunification services. The court found no reason to believe ICWA applied to the child. The parents denied Native American heritage. Ten other relatives and a friend of mother also denied or had no information regarding the child’s Native American heritage. Father later stated that he may have Native American ancestry, prompting the agency to contact paternal step-grandmother. She and paternal great-grandmother denied Native American ancestry and said no family members were registered with a tribe. Later, father changed his position, denying that he had Native American ancestry and denying that he or his family were registered with any tribe. Mother and several maternal relatives continued to deny Native American ancestry. The court terminated reunification services, terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan. Parents appealed as to ICWA only, claiming the agency failed to speak to four known relatives.
Affirmed. The juvenile court reasonably determined that the agency discharged its duty of inquiry without consulting four known relatives. The agency had contacted a considerable number of individuals and raised ICWA concerns with everyone it consulted. Its investigation was reasonably thorough. The agency need not always “inquire of everyone who has an interest in the child.” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1141). The law of diminishing returns is at work. The decision in In re Claudia R. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 76, which would impose additional duties on the agency here, was wrongly decided and contrary to legislative intent which seeks to reasonably confine the agency’s duty of inquiry so as not to detract from the agency’s service to children in desperate need. Tasking the agency with contacting additional relatives for whom the agency has contact information as part of its ICWA inquiry cannot always be characterized as a “rather simple task,” particularly when considered in the aggregate. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1143). Judge Uzcategui dissented, agreeing with the analysis in In re Claudia R., noting that the agency did not interview all reasonably available extended family members, and concluding that conditional reversal would have been appropriate.
ICWA—INITIAL INQUIRY—WIC 224.2
In re Bella L.–published 1/20/26; Second Dist., Div. Five
Docket No. B348279; 117 Cal.App.5th 1284
https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B348279.PDF
AN INITIAL ICWA INQUIRY WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THE AGENCY INQUIRED OF THE PARENTS AND SEVEN PATERNAL RELATIVES, BUT FAILED TO INTERVIEW ONE PATERNAL RELATIVE
After the agency filed a WIC 300 petition, both mother and father filed ICWA-020 forms denying Native American heritage. The children were detained from parents, and the juvenile court found there was no reason to know that ICWA applied. A month later parents again denied Native American heritage. The children were placed with paternal great aunt and uncle. As the case progressed, the agency conducted a further ICWA inquiry, interviewing parents, paternal great aunt, paternal great grandmother, and maternal grandmother, and all denied Native American heritage. The juvenile court ultimately calendared a WIC 366.26 hearing and reiterated its prior finding that ICWA did not apply. The agency requested continuances of the section 366.26 hearing to ensure they conducted “a thorough ICWA inquiry.” The agency interviewed paternal great aunt, paternal great uncle, paternal great aunt and uncle’s son, paternal great aunt’s sister, paternal great aunt’s mother, paternal grandmother, and maternal grandmother. The juvenile court found there was no reason to know ICWA applied and terminated parental rights. Mother and father appealed.
Affirmed. There is an ongoing duty of the agency to inquire of relatives, including extended family members, whether the children “is or may be an Indian child.” (WIC 224.2(a)-(b).) The California Supreme Court in In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1140-1141 held that for an initial inquiry by the agency to be adequately supported by substantial evidence, the agency need not interview every extended family member about Native American heritage, and the juvenile court’s ICWA finding is subject to a deferential standard of review. Despite not interviewing paternal grandfather, the agency diligently interviewed a multitude of relatives who all denied the children had any Native American heritage. The well-documented record provides no reason to question the juvenile court’s finding that there was no reason to know ICWA applied, and thus that finding is worthy of deference.