Filed 9/10/ 15 In re H.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 specifie d 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.P., a Person Coming Under the

Juvenile Court Law. B263824

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. CK84140)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

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

D. Downing, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

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

Cou nty Counsel, and Julia Roberson, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and

Respondent.2

J.P. , the father of the child, H.P. , appeals from a dependency dispositional order

.

The father contends the dispositional order must be reversed because of n oncompliance

with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The parties have

stipulated to a limited reversal of the dispositional order to allow compliance with the

Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions

. In add ition, the parties have

stipulated to immediate remittitur issuance.

We accept the parties ’ stipulation. The parties agree there was noncompliance

with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. We concur in their

assessment in th is regard. Further, the parties agree the dispositional order must be

reversed and remanded to permit proof of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act

and related California provisions.

Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal in the dependency c ontext is discussed in

the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379

- 382. The present case

involves reversible error

— t he failure to present substantial evidence of compliance with

the Indian Child Welfare Act and its related California provis ions. ( In re Marinna J.

(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736

- 740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471

-

472.) Under any circumstances, t he dispositional order would be reversed . Thus, a

stipulated reversal advances those interests identified in Code of Civil Procedure section

128, subdivision (a)(8) . ( In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p p. 379

- 382 ; s ee

Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324,

1329

- 1330.) If proper notice and investigation is unde rtaken and no tribe asserts that the

child is of Indian descent, the dispositional order is to be reinstated. If a tribe asserts that

the child is of Indian descent, the juvenile court is to proceed in compliance with the

Indian Child Welfare Act and rela ted California provisions.3

T he dispositional order is reversed and the cause is remanded for compliance with

the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. The

remittitur is to issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.