In Re Km, 172 Cal. App. 4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Km, 172 Cal. App. 4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2020–2022 · …the juvenile court and social services agencies have an affirmative duty to inquire at the outset of the proceedings whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an indian child. ✓ Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · …did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court at p. 119 ✓
64 citation events (64 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re M.F. CA1/4 (calctapp, 2025-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re M.F. CA1/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068 , 1082 [where parent largely fails to cooperate with agency or to provide names and contact information for extended family members, agency’s ability to conduct exhaustive ICWA inquiry is necessarily constrained]; In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation” when record indicated it “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility”].) Though it is true the A…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K.D. CA4/1 (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068 , 1083 (Q.M.) [“Without reliable contact information, [the department of child and family services] could not reasonably have been expected to interview extended family members.”]; In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 (K.M.) [“Implicit in appellant’s argument is that the maternal great-grandmother might have provided information about possible heritage in some other Indian tribe.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Melody P. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Although DCFS located the notice’s cover page, the notice itself is missing. 12 relatives and no maternal relative appeared at any hearing or participated in the matter]; In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where agency “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility” toward agency, agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court”]; compare In re G.H. (2022) 84…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Daniel C. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303 , 323 [agency’s failure to interview maternal relatives was reasonable where mother could not provide information about maternal relatives and no maternal relative appeared at any hearing or participated in the matter]; In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where child protective agency “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility” toward the agency, the agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re H.S. CA2/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(E.g., In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where DCFS “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility” toward the agency, the agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court”].) Mother further contends that DCFS failed to provide full and complete documentation of its investigation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Angela R. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re A.M., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 323 [although information provided by mother triggered a duty of further inquiry, agency’s failure to interview maternal relatives was reasonable where mother could not provide information about maternal relatives and no maternal relative appeared at 3 Father suggests on appeal that DCFS did not do enough to locate members of his extended family because the CSW “apparently did not ask Father for his parents’ address in Arizona” and “apparently [did] not ask Father for his siblings’ addresses or other contact information.” The re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Q.M.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(E.g., In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where child protective agency “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility” toward the agency, the agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court”]; In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 199 [child protective agency is not required to conduct an extensive independent investigation or to “cast about” for investigative leads].) Although …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Q.M. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(E.g., In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where child protective agency “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility” toward the agency, the agency “did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court”]; In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 199 [child protective agency is not required to conduct an extensive independent investigation or to “cast about” for investigative leads].) Although …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re R.M. CA2/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Ibid.; see In re Hunter W. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1468 [no duty to investigate further where no contact information was provided for the relative with information]; In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [where agency cannot obtain additional 10 information for ICWA notice because of family hostility, the agency need not investigate further].) Given that both mother and the maternal grandmother refused to or could not provide the maternal grandfather’s contact information, and both said grandfather would not talk to DCFS, we conclude DCFS satisfied its duty of inquiry.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Baby Boy W. CA1/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 [further inquiry not required where the agency failed to interview the child’s great- grandmother because agency had given notice to the identified tribes and the record indicated the agency had “attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child’s family, but was unsuccessful due to the family’s hostility toward the Agency”].) DISPOSITION The juvenile court orders are AFFIRMED. 19 _________________________ Banke, J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ashton B. CA2/6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
"Parents unable to reunify with their children have already caused the children serious harm; the rules do not permit them to cause additional unwarranted delay and hardship without any showing whatsoever that the interests protected by ICWA were implicated in any way." (In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 120.) Assuming, arugendo, there was some error or omission in the ICWA investigation, it was harmless.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re R.N. CA2/6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115 , 118-119.) Under California law, the juvenile court and child welfare agency "have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an Indian child in all dependency proceedings. . . ." (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) 2 "For purposes of ICWA, an 'Indian child' is one who is either a 'member of an Indian tribe' or is 'eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.' ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4).)" (In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.) 2 At the May 5, 2014 detention hearing,…
examined Cited as authority (rule) In re R.G. CA4/2 (3×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, “ICWA does not require further inquiry based on mere supposition.” (In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 119.) Nevertheless, even after the initial ICWA interview, the department requested a “continuance due to the ICWA information we have learned regarding the [M]other, so we’re asking for an inquiry of Mother regarding her complete Indian heritage.” Apparently, the department learned nothing further from any such inquiries because the subsequent notice contained no further information.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Heaven G. CA2/6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
The maternal grandmother believed her family had Shoshone 2 "For purposes of ICWA, an 'Indian child' is one who is either a 'member of an Indian tribe' or is 'eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.' ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4).)" (In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.) 3 Indian heritage and provided her full name, date of birth and birthplace, and the names of the maternal grandfather, great-grandfather, great-grandmother, and great-great- grandparents with some information about dates of birth and birthplaces.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re M.G. CA2/6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Moreover, as CWS notes, it provided information about five generations of family history, which is substantially more than what ICWA regulations require (In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 119), and it did not have to conduct an independent "comprehensive" family history data search.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re C.K. CA2/6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(In re K.M., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.) Consequently, because of this biological connection, C.K.'s and S.S.'s Indian heritage originated from the Turtle Mountain Band.
discussed Cited "see" In re T.L. CA3 (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
The ICWA’s purpose is to protect the interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and 4 permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 , 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912; In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7-8 .) The juvenile court and the Department have “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) If, after the petition …
discussed Cited "see" In re C.B. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
ICWA’s purpose is to protect the interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 , 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912; In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7-8 .) The juvenile court and the Agency have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) If, after the petition is filed, the ju…
discussed Cited "see" In re B.L. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
The juvenile court and the Agency have “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) The ICWA defines an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who “is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4); § 224.1, subd. (a); In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1048 (D.S.).) “[S]ection 224.2 creates…
discussed Cited "see" In re Q.G. CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
(In re D.F. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558 , 565-567.) Although ICWA does not require any inquiry to determine whether a child is an Indian child, California law imposes duties on county welfare departments and courts to make prescribed initial inquiries in every dependency case. (§ 224.2, subds. (a)-(c); Isaiah W., supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 14 ; In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115, 120 [ICWA itself does not impose a duty on courts or child welfare agencies to inquire as to whether a child in a dependency proceeding is an Indian child.].) The child welfare agency’s initial duty of inquiry include…
discussed Cited "see" In re C.W. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
ICWA’s purpose is to protect the interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 , 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912; In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7-8 .) The juvenile court and 1 Based on the ICWA issue raised by mother, we construe her notice of appeal to be taken from the February 19, 2021 order containing the court’s ICWA finding. 4 the Department have “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child is, or may…
discussed Cited "see" In re Andrew G. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
The failure to do is, by itself, error. 6 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2), (a)(3); see In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 461 [record did not support compliance with ICWA where no Parental Notification of Indian Status form had been completed].) Although Edgar C. refused to talk to the Department at the second interview, and although the Department may be excused from conducting further inquiry if the persons with potential information refuse to talk with the Department (e.g., In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 119 ), here the Department’s report does not indicate whether it t…
discussed Cited "see" In re A.K. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
ICWA’s purpose is to protect the interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 , 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912; In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7-8 .) The juvenile court and the Department have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) If, after the petition is filed, th…
discussed Cited "see" In re B.D. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
ICWA’s purpose is to protect the interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 , 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912; In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7-8 .) The juvenile court and the Department have “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) If, after the petition is fil…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re B.M. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).) (In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355 , 360, rev. granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056; see also In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) “[I]f that initial inquiry creates a ‘reason to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then the [Department] ‘shall make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as practicable.’ ” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1052.) The Agency bears the burden “to obtain all possible information about the minor’s potential I…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re H.P. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).)” (In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355 , 360, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056; see also In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) “[I]f that initial inquiry creates a ‘reason to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then the Agency ‘shall make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as practicable.’ ” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1052; italics omitted.) Here, the Agency obtained some information about possible Native American ancestr…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re R.W. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).)” (In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355 , 360, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056; see also In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) “[I]f that initial inquiry creates a ‘reason to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then the Agency ‘shall make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as practicable.’ ” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1052, italics omitted.) 4 The Agency’s inquiry, noticing, and documentation were inadequate.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re N.M. CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Code, § 224.2, subd. (a); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); see also In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 .) If, after the petition is filed, the juvenile court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a)), notice of the pending proceeding and the right to intervene must be sent to the tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) if the tribal affiliation is not known.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re K.M., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.M., Defendant and Appellant.
B206435.
California Court of Appeal.
Mar 26, 2009.
172 Cal. App. 4th 115
Perren.
Published

[*117] Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Noel A. Klebaum, County Counsel, and Linda L. Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

PERREN, J. —

C.M. appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and finding her child adoptable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends the juvenile court erred in giving the notices required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent Ventura County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of two-year-old K.M. on November 14, 2006. The petition alleged the mother, C.M., did not properly supervise or care for the child. C.M. had untreated mental and emotional problems and was incarcerated for child endangerment. The child's father is unknown.

C.M. indicated on an Indian ancestry questionnaire that she was, or might be, a member of the "Cherakia" tribe. Based on this information, the Agency gave notice of the December 7, 2006, jurisdiction and disposition hearing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The notices contained only the names and addresses of C.M. and presumed father. The Eastern Band and United Keetoowah Band sent replies that K.M. was not a member of that tribe.

In a memorandum dated December 3, 2007, the social worker explained that she had asked C.M. several times for further information regarding her[*118] Indian ancestry, and C.M. referred the social worker to her mother. On October 21, 2007, the social worker asked the maternal grandmother about the family's Indian ancestry. She told the social worker that she had Choctaw ancestry and her ex-husband had Cherokee ancestry. She provided the social worker with their birth dates. She also provided the names of the child's great-grandparents and indicated they had Indian ancestry. The maternal grandmother was unwilling to provide further information regarding the child's possible Indian ancestry because she believed the Agency was not properly managing the child's case. According to the social worker, grandmother said, "I'll give you the information when my baby is back with me. I'm not going to give you anything so that those foster parents . . . can get any money for my baby."

The social worker spoke with C.M. once again on December 7, 2007, about the child's possible Indian heritage. At that time, C.M. provided the name of her paternal grandmother, but could not provide an address or telephone number for her or any other relevant information. C.M. also identified her maternal great-grandmother and maternal grandfather but could provide no further information about them.

After being informed that the grandmother and grandfather had Cherokee and Choctaw heritage, the Agency sent additional notices to the Cherokee tribes and BIA, and to the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. The notices included the names of the child's maternal grandmother and grandfather and maternal great-grandmother and great-grandfather. None of the tribes indicated that K.M. was a member of a tribe. At the hearing terminating parental rights on February 28, 2008, the trial court found that K.M. was not an Indian child.

DISCUSSION

C.M. contends that termination of her parental rights must be reversed because the Agency did not interview the child's great-grandmother regarding possible Indian ancestry.

(1) ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912.) For purposes of ICWA, an "Indian child" is one who is either a "member of an Indian tribe" or is "eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe." (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) The juvenile court and social services agencies have an affirmative duty to inquire at the outset of the proceedings[*119] whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 469-470 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688].)

(2) The object of tribal notice is to enable a review of tribal records to ascertain a child's status under ICWA. (In re D. T. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1455 [5 Cal.Rptr.3d 893].) The notices "must contain enough information to be meaningful. [Citation.] The notice must include: if known, (1) the Indian child's name, birthplace, and birth date; (2) the name of the tribe in which the Indian child is enrolled or may be eligible for enrollment; (3) names and addresses of the child's parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and other identifying information; and (4) a copy of the dependency petition." (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171].) "It is essential to provide the Indian tribe with all available information about the child's ancestors, especially the ones with the alleged Indian heritage. [Citation.] Notice . . . must include available information about the maternal and paternal grandparents and great-grandparents, including maiden, married and former names or aliases; birthdates; place of birth and death; current and former addresses; tribal enrollment numbers; and other identifying data." (Ibid.; see In re C.D. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 214, 224-225 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 578].)

The Agency gave notice to the tribes identified by K.M.'s grandmother and provided the names of K.M.'s grandfather and grandmother and great-grandmother and great-grandfather and all other information the Agency was able to obtain from C.M. and grandmother. The record shows the Agency attempted on several occasions to elicit further information from the child's family, but was unsuccessful due to the family's hostility toward the Agency. In sum, the Agency did all that can or should be reasonably expected of it to meet its obligation to the child, to the family, to the tribes and to the court.

(3) We have not been cited to and we have not found any case that requires the Agency to make further inquiry in these circumstances. Based on the information provided by the child's maternal grandmother, the Agency notified several Cherokee and Choctaw tribes. Implicit in appellant's argument is that the maternal great-grandmother might have provided information about possible heritage in some other Indian tribe. However, the Agency's request for information needed to contact the great-grandmother was refused. ICWA does not require further inquiry based on mere supposition. (See, e.g., In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 199 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 648] [the agency is not required to conduct an extensive independent investigation or to "cast about, attempting to learn the names of possible tribal units to which to send notices"].) The Agency was not required to make further inquiries.

[*120] Parents unable to reunify with their children have already caused the children serious harm; the rules do not permit them to cause additional unwarranted delay and hardship without any showing whatsoever that the interests protected by ICWA are implicated in any way.

The order is affirmed.

Gilbert, P. J., and Yegan, J., concurred.