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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 P erson Coming Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

,

Plaintiff and Respondent

,

v.

S

. D

. ,

Defendant and Appellant

. B319 804

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP01494B )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Co unty, 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 D eputy County Counse l, for Plaintiff and Respondent

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

. D

., Minor

.

_______________

__ __________

### 2 Mother appeal s from an order terminating her parental rights to daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section

366.26. Mother contend s 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 respo ndent’s brief; instead, m other, 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 relate d 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 ance stry

. DCFS did not ask the extended family
members about heritage

. A fter review ing 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 wi ll make a ll necessary orders to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California law. The
remittitur shall issue forthwith.

RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

M OOR , J

.

KIM, J.