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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 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 

County 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 noncompliance 

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 addition, 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 this 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 context is discussed in 

the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case 

involves reversible error—the failure to present substantial evidence of compliance with 

the Indian Child Welfare Act and its related California provisions. (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, the 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 pp. 379-382; see 

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

1329-1330.) If proper notice and investigation is undertaken 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 related California provisions.
3

The 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.