## Facts

- W.B., Jr. was a minor and an Indian child for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- The juvenile court exercised delinquency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 based on conduct that would be criminal if committed by an adult.
- The court removed W.B. from the family home and confined him in a treatment facility as a rehabilitative delinquency disposition.
- The proceeding did not involve allegations of parental abuse or neglect and did not contemplate termination of parental rights.
- The juvenile court did not provide ICWA-compliant notice to the child’s tribe before ordering the out-of-home placement.
- W.B. appealed, arguing ICWA required tribal notice for the placement.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding delinquency placements based on criminal conduct fall within ICWA’s statutory exclusion.
- The state supreme court granted review to address ICWA’s reach in delinquency matters and the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code § 224.3.

## Issues

1. When, if at all, do ICWA notice and procedural requirements apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings given ICWA’s exclusion for placements based on criminal acts?
2. Whether Welfare and Institutions Code § 224.3 requires ICWA notice and procedures in delinquency proceedings beyond ICWA’s scope, and whether any such extension is preempted by federal law.
3. Whether ICWA notice was required before W.B.’s out-of-home delinquency placement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed.
- ICWA generally does not apply to delinquency placements that are based on acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult.
- California law requires courts to inquire into Indian status at the outset of all juvenile proceedings.
- ICWA notice and related procedures apply in delinquency only in three circumstances:
  - when the court is exercising dual dependency–delinquency (“dual status”) jurisdiction;
  - when the court orders an out-of-home placement for a status offense (conduct not criminal for an adult);
  - when a delinquency court places a minor outside the home for reasons based entirely on harmful home conditions (e.g., by setting a permanency planning hearing to terminate parental rights, or by stating on the record that a foster-care-type placement is based entirely on abuse or neglect and not on delinquent conduct).
- Section 224.3 was construed consistently with ICWA and therefore was not preempted.
- ICWA notice was not required on these facts because the placement was a rehabilitative delinquency disposition based on criminal conduct, with no dependency-type basis.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s definition of “child custody proceeding” excludes placements “based upon an act which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed a crime,” so ICWA procedures generally do not govern routine delinquency dispositions.
- State law may require inquiry into a child’s Indian status in all juvenile matters to ensure ICWA is applied when it actually governs.
- In delinquency matters, ICWA notice and procedures are required only when the case falls within limited categories that functionally overlap with dependency-type child welfare concerns (dual status, status offenses, or placements based entirely on abusive or neglectful home conditions leading toward dependency outcomes).
- A state implementing statute will be construed, where reasonably possible, to be consistent with ICWA and thereby avoid federal preemption.

## Conclusion

The court held that while California juvenile courts must inquire into Indian status at the outset of all juvenile proceedings, ICWA notice is not required for most delinquency placements based on criminal conduct; because W.B.’s out-of-home placement was a rehabilitative delinquency disposition not driven by abuse, neglect, or dependency-type objectives, the failure to provide tribal notice did not require reversal.


In re W.B., Jr., 55 Cal. 4th 30, 281 P.3d 906 (Cal. 2012)