## Facts

- Brandon M., an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), became the subject of dependency proceedings after police took him and two half-siblings into protective custody.
- Petitions under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b) alleged the mother’s failure to provide adequate care and substance abuse, including lack of basic necessities in the home and the presence of drugs and paraphernalia accessible to the children.
- The juvenile court sustained jurisdiction; proceedings were later transferred to another county after the mother moved.
- Brandon’s biological father was uninvolved and his whereabouts were unknown.
- Roger H., the mother’s former partner, had lived with Brandon since infancy and had acted as Brandon’s father; Brandon viewed him as his father.
- Roger moved for de facto parent status and sought a placement allowing Brandon to live with him in Arkansas; Brandon’s tribe supported Roger’s request based on tribal traditions recognizing the relationship.
- The juvenile court granted Roger de facto parent status and later authorized a 90-day “trial home visit” in Arkansas.
- The mother appealed the de facto parent order and attempted to appeal the trial home-visit order.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA preempts California’s de facto parent doctrine, preventing a juvenile court from granting de facto parent status to a non-Indian, non-biological, non-adoptive caregiver in a dependency case involving an Indian child.
2. Whether an order authorizing a 90-day trial home visit (an interim placement decision) is an appealable order.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting Roger H. de facto parent status.
- The court held ICWA did not expressly preempt, occupy the field of, or conflict with California’s de facto parent doctrine.
- The court dismissed the purported appeal from the trial home-visit order as taken from a nonappealable order.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA establishes minimum federal standards governing specified aspects of Indian child custody proceedings (including notice, proof standards, and placement preferences) but does not displace all state juvenile court procedures.
- California de facto parent status is a procedural classification that may confer limited participatory rights (e.g., presence, counsel, and presentation of evidence) to help the court decide the child’s welfare; it does not itself create custody rights or override statutory placement preferences.
- ICWA does not prohibit state courts from allowing non-Indian caregivers to participate in proceedings; recognizing such participation does not conflict with ICWA when ICWA’s substantive requirements remain controlling.
- An interim placement order authorizing a trial home visit is not appealable under the dependency appellate scheme.

## Conclusion

ICWA did not bar a juvenile court from granting de facto parent status to a long-term caregiver who functioned as the child’s parent, because the status is procedural and does not alter ICWA’s substantive standards or placement preferences; the mother’s challenge to the interim trial home-visit order was dismissed for lack of an appealable order.


In re Brandon M., 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)