The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the termination of A.C.'s parental rights to her daughter N.S., following a dispute over compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the child's adoptability. The ruling, filed on November 9, 2026, affects A.C. and her daughter, as it solidifies the decision to place N.S. for adoption, providing her with a stable and permanent home.

The case began when the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in June 2024. The Agency claimed that N.S. had been left without support after A.C. temporarily placed her with a great aunt, who could no longer care for her. A.C. was incarcerated at the time, and the whereabouts of N.S.'s father were unknown. The juvenile court found sufficient grounds to detain N.S. and granted A.C. visitation rights.

During the adjudication hearing in October 2024, the court dismissed some allegations but found that N.S. was at risk of serious harm due to her parents' inability to provide adequate care. The court took jurisdiction over N.S. and ordered reunification services for both parents. However, by the 12-month review hearing in October 2025, the court terminated these services due to a lack of progress, setting the stage for a permanency planning hearing.

In March 2026, the juvenile court held a contested section 366.26 hearing to determine N.S.'s permanent plan. The Agency presented evidence that N.S. was generally and specifically adoptable, and the court found no exceptions that would prevent the termination of parental rights. A.C. appealed the decision, arguing that the Agency had not adequately inquired about her possible Native American heritage and that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of adoptability.

The court ruled that the Agency complied with the inquiry requirements of ICWA, stating, “The record demonstrates the Agency was able to identify and obtain the names and contact information for the tribes.” The court noted that A.C. and her family members had denied any Native American heritage, and the Agency had contacted several tribes, all of which concluded that N.S. was not an Indian child.

Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supporting the determination that N.S. was adoptable. It stated, “The juvenile court reasonably concluded that N.S. is generally and specifically likely to be adopted within a reasonable time by her prospective adoptive parents.” The court emphasized that A.C. had not maintained regular contact with N.S. and that the child had expressed a clear desire not to reunify with her parents.

This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving parental rights and the ICWA. The court's decision reinforces the importance of thorough inquiry into a child's potential Native American heritage and highlights the criteria for determining a child's adoptability. The ruling may serve as a precedent for future cases, particularly those involving the rights of parents in dependency proceedings and the standards for compliance with ICWA.

Looking ahead, A.C. has the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, though the specifics of any potential appeal were not detailed in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.