Filed 10/20/22 In re J.P. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on 

opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 

8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

___________________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

JOE P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B318631

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

19CCJP06772B)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Debra Archuleta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and 

remanded with directions.

Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ann-Marissa Cook for the Minor.

__________________________________

Joe P. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order 

terminating his parental rights over J.P. (Minor) pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends 

the juvenile court erred when it found the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its 

obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and 

related California law. Father, DCFS, and Minor have stipulated 

to a conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to 

permit compliance with ICWA and related California law. We 

accept the parties’ stipulation.

Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal and remand in 

the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 

Cal.App.4th 376. The present case involves reversible error 

because the parties agree, and we concur, there was 

noncompliance with federal ICWA regulations and related 

California law. Specifically, the record indicates maternal 

relatives (including the maternal grandmother) were present in 

court at the initial detention hearing but were not asked whether 

they had reason to know Minor was an Indian child. (25 

C.F.R. § 23.107(a) [state courts must ask “each participant” in 

child custody proceedings whether they know or have reason to 

know that the child is an Indian child]; Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 224.2, subd. (c) [“At the first appearance in court of each party, 
3

the court shall ask each participant present in the hearing 

whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the 

child is an Indian child”].)

Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit 

compliance with ICWA-related law absent the parties’ 

stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the interests identified 

by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That is 

to say, we find the interests of non-parties and the public are not 

adversely affected by our acceptance of the stipulation and the 

remand will not erode public trust or reduce the incentive for 

pretrial settlement. (See In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th 

at 379-382; Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, 

Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.)

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is conditionally 

reversed and the cause is remanded solely for further proceedings 

required by this opinion. The juvenile court is directed to

reappoint counsel for Father and either (a) hold a hearing to 

permit the court itself to question the maternal grandmother,

and any other available maternal relatives of which DCFS is 

aware, about whether Minor is an Indian child; or (b) direct the 

Department to question the maternal grandmother and any other 

available maternal relatives of which DCFS is aware about 

whether Minor is an Indian child and to thereafter submit a 

report to the court documenting the relatives’ responses. Nothing 

in our disposition precludes the juvenile court from ordering

additional inquiry of others having an interest in Minor if the 

court deems it advisable.
4

If the aforementioned inquiry results in information

indicating there is reason to know Minor is an Indian child, the 

juvenile court shall proceed in accordance with ICWA and related 

California law. If the aforementioned inquiry does not result in

information indicating there is reason to know Minor is an Indian 

child, the court’s order terminating parental rights shall be 

reinstated.

The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.