Filed 5/14/24 In re C.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.C., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B332870

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 22CCJP00486)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Judge, Pro Tempore. 

Conditionally reversed and remanded.
2

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Children’s Law Center 3, Sarah Liebowitz, for Minor C.C.

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

Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy 

County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

D.E. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating parental rights to her child C.C.1 pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Mother contends

the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children 

and Family Services (Department) failed to satisfy their initial 

inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 

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

(§ 224 et seq.).

No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, 

counsel for mother, the child, and the Department filed a joint 

application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand 

with directions to the Department and the court to conduct a 

proper initial inquiry and, if necessary, further inquiry and notice 

pursuant to ICWA and related California statutes.

This case involves reversible error because the parties 

agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the initial 

inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. 

1 Mother’s appeal does not concern her other children, J.M.L. 

and J.C.L. Father (Charles C.), whose parental rights the court 

also terminated, is not a party to this appeal.

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
3

(In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W.

(2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) That is, the Department failed 

to inquire of known maternal relatives, for instance maternal 

aunt Deshawn E. and maternal cousin Ibreanna O., whether the 

child was or might be an Indian child even though the 

Department had contact with these family members.

The parties also agree, and we concur, that (1) there is no 

reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the 

public will be adversely affected by the conditional reversal and 

remand; and (2) the parties’ reasons for requesting reversal 

outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the 

nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of 

stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial 

settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental 

rights under section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and 

remanded for proceedings required by this opinion. On remand, 

the court shall order the Department to make reasonable efforts 

to interview available extended maternal relatives about the

possibility of the child’s Indian ancestry and to report on the 

results of the Department’s investigation. Nothing in this 

disposition precludes the court from ordering additional inquiry 

of others having an interest in the child. Based on the 

information reported, if the court determines, at a noticed 

hearing with counsel for mother reappointed, that no additional 

inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the order terminating 

mother’s parental rights shall be reinstated. If additional inquiry 
4

or notice is warranted, the court shall make all necessary orders 

to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California law.

The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

MOOR, Acting P. J.

LEE, J.

 Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.