For nearly a century, Native American children across the United States, including California, were forcibly removed from their families and communities, often placed in boarding schools or foster care systems that aimed to erase their cultural identities. These practices, deeply rooted in systemic racism, have left scars on Native communities, severing ties between generations and causing long-lasting trauma. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the federal government enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a law designed to protect Native families from such separations and to preserve the cultural heritage of Native American tribes.
Background: A Painful Legacy
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 was a direct response to the widespread removal of Native American children from their homes and communities. The law mandates that child welfare agencies make a concerted effort to identify whether a child has Native American ancestry before placing them in foster care or adoption. The act also requires that Native American children be placed with relatives, fellow tribe members, or other Native families whenever possible.
Despite these protections, the implementation of ICWA has been inconsistent, with many cases still resulting in the separation of Native children from their cultural roots. This issue remains particularly pressing in California, home to one of the largest Native American populations in the country. State data indicates that over half of Native American children in California’s foster care system are placed in non-Native and non-relative homes, a statistic that has remained relatively steady over the past decade.
The Recent California Supreme Court Ruling
In a significant development, the California Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that reinforces the protections afforded by ICWA. The court’s decision, delivered on Monday, mandates that child welfare agencies conduct thorough investigations into whether children have Native American ancestry before placing them in foster care. This ruling strengthens the hand of tribes in disputes over the separation of Native families and sends a clear message to social workers and child welfare agencies: due diligence is not just a formality, but a legal and ethical obligation.
The case that led to this landmark ruling involved the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, which, in 2019, accused a mother, Angelica A., and her partner of substance abuse and domestic violence. As a result, their parental rights were terminated, and their two children were placed in the care of their paternal grandparents. Angelica A., who did not claim to have Native American ancestry, appealed the decision on the grounds that the department had failed to adequately investigate her children’s heritage.
By a 5-2 majority, the California Supreme Court sided with Angelica A., ruling that the department’s inquiry was insufficient. The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kelli Evans, emphasized that the department’s investigation should have extended beyond the parents to include other family members who were readily available for interviews.
“The department’s inquiry extended no further than mother and father, both of whom have longstanding issues with substance use disorder, even though their parents, siblings, and father’s cousin were readily available and had been interviewed by the department,” Justice Evans wrote.
The court’s ruling has significant implications, not just for Angelica A.’s case, but for nearly two dozen other cases involving child custody in California courts. The decision calls for a reversal of the juvenile court’s ruling to terminate the parents’ rights, contingent upon the child welfare agency conducting an “adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.”
Impact on Tribes and Child Welfare Agencies
This ruling is a victory for Native American tribes, who have long argued that they have a crucial role in ensuring the well-being of Native children. Tribes have consistently asserted that child welfare agencies must make good-faith efforts to inquire about a child’s Native ancestry, a process that is vital to preserving the cultural ties and identity of Native children.
Michelle Castagne, executive director of the California Tribal Families Coalition, praised the court’s decision, stating that it “recognizes the vital role that tribes have in the lives of tribal children and families.” Castagne highlighted that the inquiry process, which could take only a few days, is a small but critical step in protecting the rights of Native children and their families.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to child welfare agencies that they cannot afford to overlook the requirements set forth by ICWA. John L. Dodd, the attorney representing Angelica A., emphasized that the case sends a clear message to social workers: they must adhere to state and federal regulations regarding Native ancestry inquiries.
“All the social worker has to do is ask three or four questions when the social worker is doing a report,” Dodd explained. He dismissed concerns raised by the dissenting justices that the ruling would lead to further instability and trauma for the children involved, arguing that the inquiry process is straightforward and essential for protecting the rights of Native families.
Dissenting Opinions: Concerns Over Child Stability
Despite the majority ruling, two justices dissented, expressing concerns about the potential impact on the children involved. The dissenting justices, led by Justice Joshua Groban, argued that the majority’s decision takes a “formulaic approach” that could lead to more uncertainty and instability for children in the foster care system.
The dissenting opinion emphasized that the children, who were placed in the care of their paternal grandparents, would have been better served by a swift resolution of the case. Justice Groban wrote that the court’s decision to conditionally reverse the termination of parental rights could prolong the children’s legal limbo, causing additional trauma.
“Because the department failed to ask additional family members about the children’s ancestry, my colleagues invoke a rule of automatic conditional reversal that is wholly inconsistent with the way in which California courts have assessed state law error for almost seven decades,” Groban wrote.
However, advocates for Native American rights and child welfare experts argue that the court’s ruling is necessary to ensure that Native children are not unjustly separated from their cultural heritage. They contend that the potential for a brief delay in the legal process is a small price to pay for the protection of a child’s cultural identity and the rights of Native families.
The Broader Context: Upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act
The California Supreme Court’s ruling comes at a time when the issue of Native American child custody is once again in the national spotlight. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, rejecting a challenge that sought to weaken the law’s protections for Native American children. The ruling was seen as a major victory for Native American tribes and a reaffirmation of the importance of preserving the cultural ties between Native children and their communities.
A report released by the U.S. Department of the Interior in July 2024 further underscored the tragic history of Native American child removals, revealing that over 900 children died in forced boarding schools between 1819 and 1969. This history has fueled ongoing efforts by Native American advocates to strengthen the implementation of ICWA and ensure that child welfare agencies are held accountable for their actions.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Native American Child Welfare
The California Supreme Court’s ruling represents a critical step forward in the protection of Native American children and their families. By reinforcing the requirements of ICWA and emphasizing the importance of thorough ancestry inquiries, the court has sent a strong message to child welfare agencies that they must do more to uphold the rights of Native families.
However, the battle is far from over. Native American advocates continue to push for stronger enforcement of ICWA and greater accountability for child welfare agencies. They argue that the well-being of Native children depends not only on compliance with the law but also on a broader commitment to preserving the cultural heritage and identity of Native communities.
As the legal landscape evolves, it is clear that the protection of Native American children will remain a central issue in California and across the United States. The recent court ruling is a reminder that the rights of Native families are not just a matter of legal procedure but a crucial aspect of social justice and cultural preservation.
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court’s decision to reinforce the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act marks a significant victory for Native American tribes and families. By ensuring that child welfare agencies conduct thorough ancestry inquiries, the court has strengthened the hand of tribes in disputes over the separation of Native families. While the ruling has sparked debate over its impact on child stability, it is ultimately a crucial step toward preserving the cultural heritage and identity of Native American children.
As the nation continues to grapple with the legacy of forced child removals and the ongoing challenges faced by Native communities, the importance of laws like ICWA cannot be overstated. The California Supreme Court’s ruling is a reminder that the fight for Native American rights is far from over, and that the protection of Native children must remain a top priority for policymakers, advocates, and child welfare agencies alike.