In re T.R. - Case Brief

7 Mins read

Case Number: B329240
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
Date Filed: 2025‑08‑31

Holding

The court held that, despite the juvenile court’s termination of dependency jurisdiction and its selection of legal guardianship as the permanent plan, the court retained jurisdiction over T.R. as a ward of the guardianship and therefore could be ordered to remedy the Department’s and the juvenile court’s failure to comply with the statutory duties of inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act and California’s implementing provisions.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that clarifies the reach of California’s dependency jurisdiction after a legal‑guardianship placement, the Court of Appeal held that a juvenile court may still be compelled to enforce ICWA requirements even after it has terminated its dependency authority. The ruling resolves a split among lower courts on whether a post‑termination guardianship proceeding can serve as a vehicle for correcting ICWA violations and underscores the continuing duty of child‑welfare agencies to conduct thorough Indian‑child inquiries.

Procedural backdrop

The dispute began when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“Department”) filed a petition on March 7, 2023, alleging that Miracle R. (“Mother”) and Jaylen P. (“Father”) subjected their son, T.R., to a pattern of domestic violence that rendered the child unsafe. The juvenile court declared T.R. a dependent child, removed him from his parents, and entered jurisdiction findings and a disposition order. At that stage the Department attached an ICWA‑010(A) form asserting that an inquiry had been made and that T.R. had no known Indian ancestry. Relying on the father’s statements that neither parent possessed Indian heritage, the court concluded it had no reason to suspect the child was an Indian child and ordered the Department to continue interviewing relatives, but it never required a substantive ICWA inquiry.

Mother appealed the jurisdiction findings and disposition order on May 8, 2023. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court held a permanency‑planning hearing on January 10, 2024, selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan, appointed Eddie Lee as guardian, and terminated its dependency jurisdiction. Mother did not appeal the January 10 order, and the Department moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that without a challenge to the termination order the appellate court could not grant any effective relief.

Issues presented

  1. Mootness: Does the termination of dependency jurisdiction render Mother’s appeal from the earlier jurisdiction and disposition order moot?
  2. Jurisdiction after guardianship: Does a juvenile court retain authority to enforce ICWA duties after it has selected legal guardianship and terminated dependency jurisdiction?
  3. Compliance with ICWA: Did the Department and the juvenile court satisfy their statutory duties of inquiry and notice under ICWA and Cal‑ICWA?

The Court’s analysis

1. The appeal is not moot

The Court reiterated the two‑prong test for mootness in dependency cases: (a) the appellant must assert an ongoing injury, and (b) the injury must be redressable by the appellate court. Mother’s asserted injury—the failure to conduct a proper ICWA inquiry—remains ongoing because the statutory duty persists until a definitive determination of the child’s Indian status is made. The Court rejected the Department’s reliance on In re Rashad D., noting that case involved a final termination of dependency without any surviving jurisdiction. Here, California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 366.3 and 366.4 expressly preserve juvenile‑court jurisdiction over a child who becomes a ward of a legal guardianship, even after dependency termination. Consequently, the appellate court can grant effective relief by remanding the matter for further ICWA compliance.

2. Jurisdiction survives legal‑guardianship placement

Statutory language in § 366.4(a) provides that “any minor for whom a guardianship has been established… is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” The Court read this provision together with rule 5.481(a), which imposes a continuing duty on both the court and the Department to inquire whether a child is or may be an Indian child in all proceedings that may result in guardianship, adoption, or placement. Precedent, including In re Priscilla D. (2015) and In re Heraclio A. (1996), supports the view that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction does not evaporate with the termination of dependency when a guardianship is the chosen permanency plan. The Court therefore concluded that the juvenile court may order compliance with ICWA on remand, even though its later orders pertained to the guardianship rather than to dependency.

3. Failure to satisfy ICWA duties

The Department conceded that its jurisdiction report omitted any record of an ICWA inquiry despite interviewing multiple maternal and paternal relatives. The Court, citing the California Supreme Court’s recent holdings in In re Dezi C. (2024) and In re Kenneth D. (2024), affirmed that an inadequate initial inquiry constitutes reversible error requiring conditional reversal. Under Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 224.2 and 224.3, the Department must (i) ask the child, parents, extended family, and any other interested parties whether the child may be an Indian child, (ii) conduct further inquiry when there is a “reason to know,” and (iii) provide notice to the appropriate tribe(s) if a reason to know emerges. The Court found that the Department’s omission of any inquiry regarding extended family members—who were readily available and had been interviewed for other purposes—violated these duties. Likewise, the juvenile court failed to ask Mother about possible Indian ancestry at any hearing, breaching its own statutory obligations.

Accordingly, the Court conditionally affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order but remanded with explicit directions that the Department must conduct a full ICWA inquiry consistent with §§ 224.2‑224.3 and rule 5.481(a), document its efforts, and that the juvenile court must hold a post‑inquiry hearing to determine whether ICWA applies. If the inquiry reveals that T.R. is an Indian child, the tribe must be notified and the prior orders will be reversed; if the inquiry confirms no Indian status, the original orders stand.

Impact and unresolved questions

This opinion solidifies the principle that a juvenile court’s authority does not vanish with the adoption of a legal‑guardianship plan. Practitioners must now recognize that ICWA compliance is a continuing obligation that survives the transition from dependency to guardianship. The decision also narrows the mootness argument advanced by child‑welfare agencies in similar contexts, emphasizing that appellate courts retain discretion to address statutory violations when jurisdiction persists.

Nevertheless, the ruling leaves open the precise procedural mechanics for a juvenile court to enforce ICWA compliance without reinstating full dependency jurisdiction. Future litigation may need to address whether the court can issue orders compelling the Department to take remedial actions beyond the scope of a guardianship hearing, or whether a separate dependency proceeding must be reopened. Additionally, the opinion does not resolve whether a tribe may seek to intervene directly in a guardianship proceeding absent a formal dependency petition—a question that could shape tribal participation in post‑placement disputes.

Overall, In re T.R. provides a clear roadmap for attorneys handling dependency cases involving potential Indian‑child status: ensure exhaustive ICWA inquiries early, document every step, and be prepared to argue that jurisdiction survives legal‑guardianship placements.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901‑1912
  • Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 224.1‑224.3 (Cal‑ICWA duties of inquiry and notice)
  • Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 366.3, 366.4 (jurisdiction over children placed in legal guardianship)
  • California Rules of Court rule 5.481(a) (duty to inquire) and rule 5.480 (scope of ICWA applicability)
  • California Rules of Court rule 5.620(a) (mootness standards in dependency)
  • California Rules of Court rule 5.740(a)(4) (jurisdiction after guardianship)

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Dezi C., 16 Cal.5th 1112 (2024) – conditional reversal for inadequate ICWA inquiry
  • In re Kenneth D., 16 Cal.5th 1087 (2024) – similar conditional reversal principle
  • In re Rashad D., 63 Cal.App.5th 156 (2021) – mootness when jurisdiction terminated
  • In re Gael C., 96 Cal.App.5th 220 (2023) – mootness analysis in dependency appeals
  • In re Priscilla D., 234 Cal.App.4th 1207 (2015) – jurisdiction after guardianship
  • In re Heraclio A., 42 Cal.App.4th 569 (1996) – continued jurisdiction under § 366.4
  • In re N. F., 95 Cal.App.5th 170 (2023) – limits of ICWA in post‑permanency hearings
  • In re Y. W., 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (2021) – duty of inquiry under Cal‑ICWA
  • In re Rylei S., 81 Cal.App.5th 309 (2022) – scope of inquiry obligations
  • In re D. S., 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 (2020) – notice requirements once “reason to know” arises.