Filed 1/20/23 In re D.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.R. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B320853

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 Nos. 19CCJP07953A,

 19CCJP07953B,

 19CCJP07953C)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles

County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and 

remanded with instructions.

Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Children’s Law Center 2 and Stanley W. Wu for Minors.

——————————

Father appeals the May 18, 2022 orders terminating

parental 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 terminating 

parental rights is in error because the court failed to ensure 

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 brief. Instead, counsel for 

father, 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 with ICWA and the 

issuance of an immediate remittitur. 

The stipulating parties agree, and we concur, the record 

demonstrates that the Department did not meet the initial 

inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. 

(In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438.) Although the 

parents both denied Indian ancestry, neither the court nor the

Department asked available extended relatives about the 

possibility of Indian ancestry. Specifically, despite being in 

contact with maternal grandparents and maternal aunt, there is 

no evidence social workers asked those relatives about the 

possibility of Indian ancestry. 
3

After reviewing the entire record, we find that the 

statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 

section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated reversal have been 

satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–

382.)
4

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s May 18, 2022, orders terminating 

parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26 are conditionally reversed and remanded for proceedings 

required by this opinion. The court shall order the Department 

to make reasonable efforts to interview available extended 

relatives, including maternal grandparents and maternal aunt, 

about the possibility of the minor’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 minor. Based on the 

information reported, if the court determines that no additional 

inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the orders terminating 

parental rights are to be reinstated. If additional inquiry 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.

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 juvenile court. For reasons I have previously explained at 

length, 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, J.