Adoption of M.R.

Case Number: C095856M

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2022-10-26

Case Brief – Adoption of M.R.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: C095856
Disposition: Conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act; the trial court must make the required ICWA findings and, if the child is not an Indian child, reinstate the original judgment; if the child is an Indian child, a new trial shall be conducted in accordance with the ICWA.

Holding

The court held that the trial court’s failure to make any express or implied findings on whether the minor was an Indian child—despite statutory duties to inquire, notify, and document such status—constituted reversible error, and therefore the judgment was conditionally reversed and remanded for a limited ICWA‑compliant inquiry and entry of findings.

Narrative

The appellate decision in Adoption of M.R., a Minor (C095856) underscores California’s heightened procedural safeguards when a child’s possible Indian status intersects with family‑code and probate‑code proceedings. Father A.R., the biological father, appealed a Shasta County Superior Court judgment that freed his seven‑year‑old daughter, M.R., from his custody and authorized the maternal great‑grandmother, B.B., to adopt her. The trial court had relied on Family Code §§ 7820, 7822 (abandonment) and Probate Code § 1516.5 (best‑interest) but issued no findings on the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901‑1905.

The appellate record revealed that both parents completed ICWA‑020 parental‑notification forms asserting no known Indian ancestry, and a court‑appointed investigator filed a report finding no indication of Indian heritage. Nevertheless, the trial court neither asked the parties about extended family lineage nor entered the statutory findings required under Family Code § 7892.5 or the Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 224.2‑224.6, which are incorporated by reference into Probate Code § 1459.5 when ICWA may apply. The Department of Social Services later filed an ICWA‑010(A) form confirming the lack of Indian ancestry, but this filing occurred after the trial court’s judgment and was never considered by the lower court.

Father argued that the trial court’s omission violated the mandatory ICWA inquiry and notice duties, citing In re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359 and the California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(1). Grandmother countered that any error was harmless because the record contained no evidence suggesting Indian heritage. The Court of Appeal, however, emphasized that the statutory framework does not permit a court to bypass the inquiry merely because the existing record is silent on Indian status. Probate Code § 1516.5 is expressly inapplicable to Indian children, and Family Code § 7892.5 requires specific findings before a child may be freed from parental custody.

Distinguishing the case from In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355 and In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769—both dependency cases where the lack of inquiry was deemed harmless—the Court noted that Adoption of M.R. was not a dependency proceeding and that the trial court relied heavily on a statute that is unavailable when ICWA applies. Moreover, the closest maternal relative (the great‑grandmother) had denied Indian ancestry, creating a duty to probe further among extended relatives—a step the trial court omitted.

Accordingly, the appellate panel conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for a limited proceeding. The remand requires a thorough ICWA inquiry, including probing the maternal line’s missing branches, and the entry of the mandatory findings under Family Code § 7892.5 and the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the child is ultimately found not to be an Indian child, the original judgment granting adoption will be reinstated. If the child is determined to be an Indian child, the case must be retried in compliance with ICWA’s tribal‑participation and placement provisions.

The decision reinforces that California courts must treat ICWA compliance as a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a discretionary afterthought, even in non‑dependency adoptions. Practitioners should anticipate the need for exhaustive genealogical investigations and meticulous documentation whenever a child’s potential Indian status is at issue.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901‑1905 (especially § 1903(4))
Family Code §§ 7820, 7822 (abandonment), 7892.5 (ICWA findings)
Probate Code §§ 1516.5 (best‑interest), 1459.5 (Welfare & Institutions Code applicability)
Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 224.2‑224.6 (notice and inquiry), 827 (confidential records)
California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(1) (ICWA inquiry duty)

Key Cases Cited