Filed 1/ 20/23 In re D.R. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN TH E OF FIC IAL REP ORTS

California Rules o f 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)

. Th i s opi nio n has not been certified f or p ubl ication or ordered published fo r purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF AP PEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re D.R. et al.

, P erson s Coming Under the Juvenile C o ur t L a w

. B 320853

LOS AN GELES COU NT Y DEP ARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.R.

,

Def

endant and Appellant. (Los Angeles Cou n ty Super. Ct. No s

. 19CCJP07953A, 19CCJP07953 B, 19CCJP0 7953 C )

APP E AL fr om o rders of the Superio r Court of Los Ang el es C ounty, Debra R. Archuleta

, Judge

. Conditionally reversed and

r ema nded with instructions

. Linda J. Conrad

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Def

end an t and Appel l ant.2 Dawyn R. Harri son , Int erim County Counsel

, Kim N emoy, As si sta nt Cou nty Counsel, and Na vid Nakhjavani , Deputy
Cou nt y C o unsel, f

or Plain tiff and Respond e nt. Children ’ s Law Center 2 and St anley W. Wu for Minors.

———————

— —— F ather appeal s the May 1 8 , 2022 order s term ina t i ng

paren tal rights over his three children ( born in 2012, 2015, and

2017 ) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the order terminat ing parental rights is in error because the court f ai led to en sure compliance with the inquiry requirements of 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.). No interested party filed a respondent’s br i ef

. Inst ead , coun sel f

or fa ther, minors, and the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and stipulation requesting a conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance wi t h I CWA an d the
iss uance of a n immediate remittitur.
The stipulating parties agree, and we con cur, the record demonstrates that the Department did not meet the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. ( I n re H.V. (2022) 7 5 Ca l.App. 5th 433, 438.) Alt hough the parents both denied Indian ancestry, neither the court nor the Department ask ed available extended relatives about the possibility of Indian ancestry. Specifically, de spite being in

cont a ct with m aternal grandparents and maternal aunt, ther e is
no evidence social workers asked those relatives about the possibility of Indian ancestry.3 After reviewing the entire re cord, we find that the statutory require ments set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a st ipula ted reversal have been satisfied here. (

In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal. A pp. 4th 37 6, 379

– 382.)4 DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s May 1 8 , 2022 , order s terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section

366.26 are conditionally reve rsed and remanded for proceedings required by this opinion. The court sha l l order the Department
to make reasonable efforts to intervi ew available extended
relatives

, including maternal grandparents and maternal aunt

, about the possibility of the minor’s India n ancestry and to report
on the results of th e Department’s investiga t ion. N othi ng in this disposition precludes the court from o rdering addit ional inquiry of others having an interest in the minor. Based on the information reported, if the court de termi nes that no additional inquiry or notice to t ribes is necessary, the o rder s te rmi nating parental rights are to be reinstated. If ad ditional inqu iry or notice is warranted, the court shall make all necessary orders to ensure compliance with ICWA and r elate d California law.
The remittitur shall issue f orthwith.
NO T TO B E P UBL I SHED.

MOOR

, J

.

I concur:

RUBIN

, P. J.In re D.R. et al.

B320853

BAKER, J., Dissenting

I would reject the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter to the juveni le co urt. For reasons I have previously explained at length, t his 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] h ere could be an adverse effect on the adoptive parents ’ rights if there were a stipulated reversal of a Welfare and Institutions Cod e

sec tion 366.26 parental termination rights order. A stipulated reversal could further delay the conclusion of the adoptio n

process ”].)

BAKER, J.