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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B31 8631

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP 06772B )

APPE AL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Archuleta

, Judge

. Conditionally r eversed and
remanded with directions

. Annie Greenleaf , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting Co unty 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

te rminating 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 obligat ions 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

nonc ompliance 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 reaso n 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) [“A t 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 compli ance 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
adver sely 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,
In c. (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 t he 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 order ing
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 sha ll proceed in accordance with ICWA and related
California law. If the aforementioned inquiry do es 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.
Th e remittitur shall issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN

, P. J.

KIM

, J.