Filed 8/24/21 In re J.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 J.S., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

B312135

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. 

19CCJP01104A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Philip Soto, Judge. Conditionally reversed and 

remanded with directions.

Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, David Michael Miller, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Stacie Hendrix for the Minor.

__________________________________

Juan S. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order

terminating his parental rights over J.S. (Minor) pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends

the juvenile court erred when it determined the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) 

satisfied its inquiry and notice obligations under the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law in connection with 

K.S.’s (Mother’s) claims of possible Indian heritage. Father, 

DCFS, and Minor have stipulated to a limited reversal and a 

remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with 

ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’

stipulation. 

Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal and remand in

the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 

Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible 

error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was 

noncompliance with ICWA and related California provisions. 

(See, e.g., In re T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 287-291.) 

Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit 

compliance with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and 

rules absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand

advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure 

section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That is to say, we find the 
3

interests of non-parties or the public are not adversely affected by 

our acceptance of the stipulation and the remand will not erode 

public trust or reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (See 

In re Rashad H., supra, at 379-382; Union Bank of California v. 

Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-

1330.) 

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s March 3, 2021, order terminating 

parental rights is conditionally reversed and the matter is 

remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of 

demonstrating full compliance with ICWA and related California 

law.

The juvenile court is directed to re-appoint counsel for 

Father and Mother and to order DCFS to comply with the inquiry 

requirements set forth in ICWA and corresponding California 

law. If proper inquiry (to include efforts to interview Mother, 

Minor’s maternal grandparents, and other known and available 

maternal relatives, as well as efforts to contact the Cherokee 

Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and the 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians) is documented by DCFS 

and found to have been undertaken by the juvenile court and the

court determines there is no reason to know Minor is an Indian 

child, the juvenile court shall reinstate the parental rights 

termination order. If the juvenile court determines there is 

reason to know Minor is an Indian child, the court is to proceed in 

compliance with ICWA and related California provisions, 
4

including Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.3. Pursuant 

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

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.