Filed 7/27/22 In re K.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 K.B. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B317711

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. 

21CCJP01142A-B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Conditionally affirmed 

in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ann-Marissa Cook for the Minor.

__________________________________

P.G. (Mother) appeals from juvenile court orders

establishing a legal guardianship over K.B. and K.S. (Minors)

and terminating dependency jurisdiction. Mother contends the 

juvenile court erred in two ways: (1) by delegating authority to 

the appointed guardian to determine whether and when 

visitation between Mother and Minors would occur; and (2) by 

not ensuring adequate inquiry into whether Mother or the 

Minors’ father, M.B., have any Indian heritage such that Minors 

would qualify as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare 

Act (ICWA) and related California law. Mother, the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), 

and Minors have stipulated to a conditional affirmance of the 

guardianship order and a limited reversal of the order 

terminating dependency jurisdiction to remedy these deficiencies. 

We accept the parties’ stipulation.

Our ability to accept the parties’ stipulation in the 

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

Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382 (Rashad H.). The present case involves 

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

was noncompliance with (1) law governing visitation when a 

guardianship order is made (see, e.g., In re Rebecca S. (2010) 181 

Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-1314) and (2) ICWA and related 

California provisions (see, e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subds. 
3

(b)-(c).) Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit 

compliance with these legal requirements 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 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 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 January 3, 2022, order granting a 

guardianship over Minors is conditionally affirmed. The juvenile 

court’s January 3, 2022, order terminating jurisdiction over 

Minors is reversed. The cause is remanded solely for proceedings 

required by this opinion.

The juvenile court is directed to re-appoint counsel for 

Mother and to order DCFS to investigate whether there is reason 

to believe Minors may be Indian children under ICWA and 

corresponding California statutes. If proper investigation (to 

include efforts to interview Mother and available paternal and 

maternal relatives) is documented by DCFS and found to have 

been undertaken by the court, and if no tribe has stated (after 

notice, if required) that either Minor is an Indian child, the 

juvenile court shall reinstate the guardianship order, make a 

visitation order that specifies whether and when visitation 

between Mother and Minors shall be permitted, and terminate 

dependency jurisdiction. If a tribe asserts either Minor is an
4

Indian child, the juvenile court is to proceed in compliance with 

ICWA and related California provisions.

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the remittitur shall 

issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.