Filed 6/24/22 In re L.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 L.T., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B315938

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 18LJJP00394A–C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Conditionally 

reversed and remanded with directions.

Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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, Children’s Law Center, for Minors.
2

Father appeals from an order terminating parental rights 

to his three children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26.1 He contends the juvenile court erred when it determined 

the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian 

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

California law as to the children’s possible Indian heritage. No 

interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, father, DCFS, 

and the children filed a joint application and stipulation for

conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to permit 

proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We 

accept the parties’ stipulation.

This case involves reversible error because the parties 

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

requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re 

H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) And, after reviewing the entire record, 

we find that the statutory requirements set forth at 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.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s July 27, 2021, order terminating

parental rights over son is conditionally reversed and the matter 

is remanded to the juvenile court with the following directions.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

1. DCFS shall make reasonable efforts to interview the 

paternal grandmother and any available paternal family 

member regarding whether the children are or may be 

Indian children.

2. DCFS shall document its efforts to interview the 

paternal grandmother and all available paternal family 

members regarding whether the children are or may be 

Indian children, and provide a report with said 

documentation and the results of its interviews to the 

juvenile court.

3. At a noticed hearing, with counsel for the parents 

reappointed, the juvenile court shall make a finding 

regarding ICWA’s applicability, determine whether DCFS 

has interviewed all available extended paternal family 

members, and proceed according to sections 224.2 and 

224.3, including ordering DCFS to send new notices with 

additional and/or corrected information to the appropriate 

tribes in accordance with ICWA, if appropriate. 

4. If new notices are sent and after the juvenile court 

receives responses from the noticed tribes, it shall proceed 

in accordance with ICWA if any tribe determines the 

children are Indian children. If no tribe or agency 

determines the children are Indian children after notice 

has been provided pursuant to ICWA, the order 

terminating parental rights shall be reinstated as the 

order of the court. 
4

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the remittitur shall 

issue forthwith.

RUBIN, P. J.

I CONCUR:

KIM, J.
In re L.T. et al.

B315938

BAKER, J., Concurring.

I agree conditional reversal and a remand to the juvenile 

court is required because the court did not comply with federal 

regulations that require the court to ask “each participant” in a 

child custody proceeding—at the commencement of the 

proceeding—whether the participant knows or has reason to 

know the minor in question is an Indian child. (25 

C.F.R. § 23.107(a).) The minors’ paternal grandmother was 

present in court at the initial detention hearing for L.T. and M.T., 

but the court did not make the required inquiry. If, on remand, 

the paternal grandmother has no information suggesting the 

minors are Indian children, I believe the juvenile court would be 

entitled to find the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply 

(though the court would also be free to order any additional 

inquiry it deems appropriate). (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 

433, 439-442 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.).)

BAKER, J.