Filed 10/14/22 In re R.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 R.D., a Person Coming 

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B319804

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 18CCJP01494B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Conditionally reversed

and remanded with directions.

Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.D.

Dawyn Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Stanley Wu, Children’s Law Center 2, for R.D., Minor.

___________________________
2

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental 

rights to daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court failed to satisfy its 

inquiry obligations and 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 daughter’s possible Indian heritage. No interested party 

filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother, DCFS, and daughter

filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal

and remand to the juvenile court to order DCFS to inquire of

available maternal extended family members in 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.) Here, DCFS only inquired with the 

parents and the maternal grandmother regarding Native 

American ancestry. DCFS did not ask the extended family 

members about heritage. 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 March 24, 2022 order terminating 

parental rights to daughter is conditionally reversed, and the 

matter is remanded to the juvenile court for proceedings required 
3

by this opinion. The juvenile court shall reappoint counsel for the 

parents. The juvenile court shall order DCFS to make reasonable 

efforts to interview available maternal family members about the 

possibility of the child’s Indian ancestry and to report to the court 

the results of DCFS’s investigation. Based on the information 

reported, if the court determines that no additional inquiry or 

notice to tribes is necessary, the order terminating parental 

rights shall be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice is 

warranted, the juvenile court will make all necessary orders to 

ensure compliance with ICWA and related California law. The

remittitur shall issue forthwith.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.