Today's California Supreme Court decision finally resolves the oft-litigated issue of what appellate courts should do in dependency cases when the trial court has conducted an inadequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The answer -- over the dissent of two justices -- is: conditionally reverse.
Both the majority and the dissent make good points. That's in part why there was such a solid split in the Courts of Appeal. So both opinions are definitely worth reading.
The opinion is also a great example of why one can't merely read the majority opinion to ascertain the "holding" of the case. Sure, the majority opinion here gets 5 votes, so it's clearly the law.
But the concurring opinion expressly agrees with Part II of the dissent, which involves "the threshold question of what constitutes an adequate initial inquiry under Cal-ICWA." Two justices agree with that portion of the dissent (Justices Kruger and Corrigan) even though they also join the majority opinion, and two justices agree with the dissent in toto (Justice Groban and Chief Justice Guerrero).
Add those all together and that makes four. Which is a majority of the Court.
So while that's technically dicta, it's still incredibly meaningful. Which what a majority of the Court has said is a pretty telling indication of what the respective Courts of Appeal should do in the future.
