February 9, 2025
  • 8:17 pm The Future of Space Exploration: Bold Missions and Uncharted Frontiers
  • 7:54 pm Bill Gates Calls Divorce from Melinda His Biggest Regret
  • 6:56 pm Heightened ICE Enforcement in Texas Sparks Fear and Raises Legal Concerns
  • 7:55 pm California Supreme Court Reinforces Protections for Native American Families in Child Custody Cases
  • 7:40 pm Mel Gibson Reflects on Devastating Loss of Malibu Mansion in Palisades Fire

For nearly a century, California and other states forced Native American youth into boarding schools in an effort to erase their cultural identity. These policies aimed to separate children from their families and communities, often placing them in foster systems that severed ties to their heritage. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the federal government stepped in with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This landmark legislation sought to protect Native families from unjust separations by requiring child welfare agencies to inquire about Native ancestry and prioritize keeping children connected to their tribes, relatives, and communities.

Despite these legal safeguards, disputes over Native family separations continue to arise in California courts, which have stronger protections than federal law. In August 2024, the California Supreme Court reinforced these protections with a significant ruling. The court emphasized that child welfare agencies must thoroughly investigate a child’s potential Native American ancestry before placing them in foster care. This decision strengthens tribes’ roles in family separation cases and requires social workers to dig deeper before removing children from their homes.

Interestingly, the case that prompted this decision involved parents who do not claim any Native ancestry or tribal affiliation. In 2019, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services accused the parents of two children of substance abuse and domestic violence. The children’s mother, referred to as Angelica A. in court documents, had her parental rights terminated. Although she had not indicated Native ancestry, Angelica A. appealed the decision, arguing that officials failed to properly investigate her children’s heritage.

In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court sided with the mother, calling into question not only her case but nearly two dozen others involving child custody across the state. Justice Kelli Evans, writing for the majority, criticized the welfare agency for not extending its inquiry beyond the children’s parents, who both had longstanding struggles with substance abuse. Relatives, including the father’s cousin and siblings, had been interviewed during the investigation but were not asked about the children’s ancestry.

The court reversed the juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights, instructing the agency to conduct a more thorough inquiry supported by proper documentation. Shiara Davila-Morales, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, stated that the department was unable to comment in time for publication.

Upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act

The case highlights the ongoing challenges surrounding Native American child custody in the United States. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed in 1978 to regulate the removal and out-of-home placement of Native children. This federal law was a response to centuries of harmful practices, including the boarding school system, which resulted in the deaths of over 900 Native children between 1819 and 1969, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Despite these protections, Native American youth in California’s foster care system continue to face disproportionate placements in non-relative and non-Native households. Over half of Native children in the system are placed outside their communities, a figure that has remained steady over the past decade, according to research from UC Berkeley. Tribes argue that they play a vital role in ensuring the wellbeing of Native children and stress the importance of good-faith efforts by social workers to determine a child’s ancestry.

Michelle Castagne, executive director of the California Tribal Families Coalition, praised the California Supreme Court’s decision, noting that a thorough inquiry into Native ancestry could take just a few days. “The court’s decision recognizes the vital role that tribes have in the lives of tribal children and families,” she said in a statement.

Dissenting Voices and Concerns

However, the ruling was not without controversy. The two dissenting justices criticized the majority’s decision, arguing that it prioritizes procedural requirements over the children’s need for stability. According to the ruling, the children have been in the care of their paternal grandparents, who are ready to adopt them, for four years. The dissenting justices expressed concern that further delays in the case would create more uncertainty and trauma for the children.

Justice Joshua Groban, writing for the dissent, argued that the majority’s “formulaic approach” imposes unnecessary burdens on the child welfare system. He warned that this approach could lead to prolonged legal battles and delays in resolving cases.

Still, others see the decision as a necessary correction. John L. Dodd, the attorney representing the mother, pointed out that the inquiry process is simple and should have been completed initially. “All the social worker has to do is ask three or four questions when the social worker is doing a report,” Dodd said, adding that this case sends a clear message to child welfare agencies to comply with state and federal regulations.

The two children at the center of the case, now 8 and 6 years old, remain in their grandparents’ custody. For them and others like them, the California Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of following proper procedures to ensure Native children maintain their connections to their heritage and communities.

California is home to approximately 350,000 Native American youth under the age of 18. For these children, the ruling underscores the state’s commitment to honoring the spirit of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A Santa Rosa Family Law Attorney would likely see this ruling as a critical step in protecting family connections and ensuring that child custody decisions respect cultural and legal requirements, highlighting the importance of thorough investigations in family law cases.

Safety Info

RELATED ARTICLES