Filed 2/29/24 In re A.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.B. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B331383

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP01452B-C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay, III, Judge. Conditionally 

reversed with directions.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel and William D. Thetford, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dan Szrom, Children’s Law Center 1, for minors.

——————————

T.B. (father) appeals from the August 17, 2023 order 

terminating his parental rights to two of his children born in July 

2018 (minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26.1 We conditionally reverse and remand. Father contends 

that the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department 

of Children and Family Services (Department) did not comply 

with their obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 

(ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). Father, the Department, and 

minor have stipulated to a limited reversal and a remand to the 

juvenile court to permit proper 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, 379–382. The present case involves reversible 

error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was 

noncompliance with ICWA and related California provisions. (In 

re K.R. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 701, 706–709; see also In re 

Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Because this case 

would be subject to conditional reversal to permit compliance 

with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and rules 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. 
3

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 nonparties or 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, at pp. 379–382; see also Union Bank of California v. 

Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329–

1330.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s August 17, 2023 order terminating

parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to 

the juvenile court for the limited purpose of complying with 

ICWA and related California law. The juvenile court is directed 

to order the Department to make reasonable efforts to inquire of 

all of minors’ known and available extended paternal and 

maternal family members and to submit to the juvenile court a 

report of its interviews or efforts to conduct the interviews. If, 

based on the initial inquiry, there is reason to believe an Indian 

child may be involved but not yet sufficient information to 

determine if notice must be provided to a tribe or tribes, the 

Department is to conduct further inquiry pursuant to section

224.2, subdivision (e). At a noticed hearing, with counsel for 

father reappointed, the juvenile court shall determine whether 

adequate inquiry and any necessary notice has been made and 

make findings as required by ICWA. If the court finds the ICWA 

is not applicable, it shall reinstate the order terminating parental
4

rights. If notice is required and any tribe indicates the child is an 

Indian Child, the juvenile court shall proceed in accord with the 

ICWA. 

The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

I concur:

KIM, J.
In re A.B. et al.

B331383

BAKER, Acting P. J., Dissenting

I would reject the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter 

to the juvenile court. For reasons I have previously explained, 

this court cannot properly make the findings required by Code of 

Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). (In re A.C. (2022) 

86 Cal.App.5th 130, 141-144 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); In re H.V.

(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 441 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); see also In 

re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380 [“[T]here could be 

an adverse effect on the adoptive parents’ rights if there were a 

stipulated reversal of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26 parental termination rights order. A stipulated reversal 

could further delay the conclusion of the adoption process”].)

BAKER, Acting P. J.