Filed 7/15/15 In re I.I. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 I.I., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B261631

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. 

 No. CK51363)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OTIS I.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Tony 

L. Richardson, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Mary Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County 

Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

Clare Appleby for Minor. 
2

Otis I. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to his daughter, 

I.I., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. His only claim on appeal 

is that respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) failed to provide the court with evidence of notices complying with the 

federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; In re Marinna J.

(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739, fn. 4.) The record supports father’s contention, and 

counsel for all parties have submitted a joint stipulation for reversal to allow compliance 

with the ICWA.

Any stipulated reversal must meet the standards imposed by Code of Civil 

Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).1 Because the order terminating father’s 

parental rights would be subject to a limited reversal to permit compliance with the

ICWA, a stipulated reversal meets the criteria identified in Code of Civil Procedure 

section 128, subdivision (a)(8), in that the interests of nonparties or the public are not 

adversely affected, and the reversal will not erode public trust or reduce the incentive for 

pretrial settlement. (See In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382.)

For the reasons stated above, we accept the parties’ stipulation. The order 

terminating parental rights is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the limited purpose 

of ensuring compliance with the ICWA’s notice requirements. If after proper inquiry and 

notice, no tribe comes forward, the dependency court shall reinstate its order terminating 

 

1 Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) states in pertinent part: 

“An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an 

agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following: [¶] 

(A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be 

adversely affected by the reversal. [¶] (B) The reasons of the parties 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.”
3

parental rights. (Tina L. v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 262, 268.) Pursuant 

to the parties’ stipulation, the remittitur shall issue forthwith.

KRIEGLER, J. 

We concur: 

TURNER, P. J.

KIRSCHNER, J. *

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.