In re L.S

In In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, after failing to claim Indian heritage in a prior dependency proceeding, the mother claimed and then denied "Blackfoot" heritage, and subsequently either stated that she had Cherokee heritage or said she had no Indian heritage -- the facts were unclear. (Id. at pp. 1196-1197.) The juvenile court "never clarified the facts regarding claims of Indian heritage" and "never ruled on whether . . . ICWA applied." (230 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197.) The court of appeal concluded that the agency "may have performed its duty of inquiry," but "failed in its duty to document it and to provide clear information to the court so the court could rule on the question . . . whether . . . ICWA applied." (Id. at p. 1198.) The appellate court further found that the juvenile court failed to comply with its duty: "Given the conflicting and inadequate information on mother's claim of Indian heritage, the court had a duty either to require the Agency to provide a report with complete and accurate information regarding the results of its inquiry and notice or to have the individual responsible for notice to testify in court regarding the inquiry made, the results of the inquiry, and the results of the notices sent. Only then could the court determine whether . . . ICWA applied." (Ibid.) The court reversed and remanded for determination whether ICWA applied and if so, whether the agency complied with its notice provisions. (Id. at p. 1201.)