Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re EGgreen2 sentences2026(In re B.R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 773 , 785 [minors may meet definition of an Indian child where minors are biologically related to their father and father was potentially a member of an Apache tribe via his adoptive relationship with the minors’ grandfather].) 21. because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father,” citing In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533 (E.G.). 2025(See 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (9) [defining “parent” as “any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom”]; In re C.A. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 511, 519-521 [ICWA notice not required for a presumed father who was not biological or adoptive father]; In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533 [“Until biological paternity is established, an alleged father’s claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indi | 3 | 16 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. C.T. (In re C.A.)green2 sentences2025(See 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (9) [defining “parent” as “any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom”]; In re C.A. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 511, 519-521 [ICWA notice not required for a presumed father who was not biological or adoptive father]; In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533 [“Until biological paternity is established, an alleged father’s claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indi 2024It does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (9); In re C.A. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 511, 520 [definition of parent does not include an unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established]; In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533 [“absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father”].) The limited definition of “parent” under ICWA has caused courts of this jurisdiction to resolve the issue under state law. “[I]n California an alleged father may acknowledge | 3 | 5 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shirley S.green2 sentences2018In 2009, the Third District Court of Appeal held that under ICWA's provisions, "[u]ntil biological paternity is established, an alleged father's claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father." ( In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 871 ( E.G. ); see In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 73 , 84, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 388 [Rejecting argument that ICWA notice required where adoptive mother is a member of a tribe and holding ICWA is inapplicable 2018In 2009, the Third District Court of Appeal held that under ICWA's provisions, "[u]ntil biological paternity is established, an alleged father's claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father." ( In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 871 ( E.G. ); see In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 73 , 84, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 388 [Rejecting argument that ICWA notice required where adoptive mother is a member of a tribe and holding ICWA is inapplicable | 2 | 2 |
In Re BRgreen2 sentences2026(In re B.R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 773 , 785 [minors may meet definition of an Indian child where minors are biologically related to their father and father was potentially a member of an Apache tribe via his adoptive relationship with the minors’ grandfather].) 21. because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father,” citing In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533 (E.G.). 2018In 2009, the Third District Court of Appeal held that under ICWA's provisions, "[u]ntil biological paternity is established, an alleged father's claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father." ( In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 871 ( E.G. ); see In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 73 , 84, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 388 [Rejecting argument that ICWA notice required where adoptive mother is a member of a tribe and holding ICWA is inapplicable | 1 | 2 |
In Re Daniel M.green2 sentences2024ICWA defines a “parent” as “any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom. 26 It does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (9).) Under California law, “[a]n alleged father may or may not have any biological connection to the child.” (In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533.) But “absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father.” (Ibid.; see In re Daniel M. 2023(Ibid; Daniel M., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 707–708.) Here, when asked to make a paternity finding, the juvenile court found M.S. was only an alleged father. | 1 | 2 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. M.J.green1 sentence2018In 2009, the Third District Court of Appeal held that under ICWA's provisions, "[u]ntil biological paternity is established, an alleged father's claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement because, absent a biological connection, the child cannot claim Indian heritage through the alleged father." ( In re E.G. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1530 , 1533, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 871 ( E.G. ); see In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 73 , 84, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 388 [Rejecting argument that ICWA notice required where adoptive mother is a member of a tribe and holding ICWA is inapplicable | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.