Filed 8/9/22 In re E.V. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re E.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F084230

(Super. Ct. No. JVDP-21-000057)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Annette 

Rees, Judge.

Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

D.B. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights 

over her son E.V. (born July 2019) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 366.26.1 Her sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the 

Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) failed to comply with the 

Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. 

The agency concedes error and the parties have stipulated to an immediate limited 

remand for the purpose of complying with the inquiry provisions of ICWA. Accordingly, 

we conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order but remand for the limited purpose of 

ensuring compliance with ICWA and related California law.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

On March 23, 2021, the agency filed a petition on behalf of E.V. pursuant to 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging he was at substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm or illness due to the parents’ substance abuse problems. Eliseo V. (father) 

was listed as E.V.’s presumed father. The petition included an Indian Child Inquiry 

Attachment (ICWA-010(A)) form indicating the social worker asked mother and father 

about Indian ancestry and they gave him no reason to believe E.V. was or could be an 

Indian child. The parents also completed Parental Notification of Indian Status 

(ICWA-020) forms indicating they did not have Indian ancestry.

The detention report stated ICWA may not apply as both parents reported they did 

not have Indian ancestry.

On March 24, 2021, at the detention hearing, the juvenile court stated it received 

the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and found ICWA did not apply. All subsequent reports 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.

2 Because the sole issue on appeal concerns ICWA, we restrict our facts to those 

bearing on that issue.
3.

prepared by the agency noted that ICWA did not apply based on the juvenile court 

finding at the detention hearing.

On May 4, 2021, at the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile 

court found ICWA did not apply.

On October 27, 2021, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found 

ICWA did not apply.

On December 21, 2021, at the contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile 

court found ICWA did not apply.

On April 12, 2022, at the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found ICWA 

did not apply.

On April 12, 2022, the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights.

Throughout the proceedings the agency had contact with various extended family 

members including the maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmother, and E.V.’s 

care providers who were maternal relatives.

On April 15, 2022, mother filed a notice of appeal.

STIPULATION

In the present case, the agency concedes ICWA error and the parties have 

stipulated to a limited remand. A stipulated reversal under Code of Civil Procedure 

section 128, subdivision (a)(8), is permissible in a dependency case when the parties 

agree that reversible error occurred, and the stipulated reversal will expedite the final 

resolution of the case on the merits. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380–

382.) In the stipulation, the parties agree the agency failed to comply with its statutory 

duty of inquiry regarding E.V.’s possible Indian ancestry under ICWA and that this court 

should order a limited remand, with instructions that the agency complete further inquiry 

under ICWA and provide notice, if necessary, to the relevant tribes. (See In re 

Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 704–710 [limited remand for compliance with 
4.

duty of notice under ICWA is proper remedy].) Reversal is therefore appropriate given 

the agency’s failure to comply with its duties under ICWA.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is conditionally affirmed. 

We remand for the agency and the juvenile court to comply with the inquiry and notice 

provisions of ICWA and California law. If the court finds the child is an Indian child, it 

shall conduct a new section 366.26 hearing, as well as all further proceedings, in 

compliance with ICWA and related California law. If not, the court’s original

section 366.26 order will remain in effect.