Court Opinion

ID: 9945943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 20:02:57.402127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:20.505117
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/24 In re K.C. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.C., a Person Coming                                    B332167
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         Super. Ct.
AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           No. 18CCJP02683A)

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

C.C.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lucia J. Murillo, Temporary Judge.
Conditionally reversed with directions.
     Maryann M. Goode, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Elizabeth Genatowski, Children’s Law Center 1, for minor.
                     ——————————

     C.C. (father) appeals from the October 3, 2023 order
terminating his parental rights to K.C. (minor) under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We conditionally reverse
and remand. Father contends that the juvenile court and the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(Department) did not comply with their obligations under the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et
seq.). Father, the Department, 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. (In
re K.R. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 701, 706–709; see also In re
Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Because this case
would be subject to conditional reversal to permit compliance
with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and rules
absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

                                 2
interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (a)(8). That is to say, we find the 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 pp. 379–382; see also Union Bank of California v.
Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329–
1330.)

                         DISPOSITION

       The juvenile court’s October 3, 2023 order terminating
parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to
the juvenile court for the limited purpose of complying with
ICWA and related California law. The juvenile court is directed
to re-appoint counsel for the parents and order the Department to
(1) interview all known and available paternal and maternal
relatives to obtain information on the family’s lineage and Native
American heritage; (2) document its efforts in a report to the
court; (3) complete the ICWA-030 notice form; and (4) send the
ICWA-030 notice form to the Coast Miwok and Pomo and any
other relevant federally recognized tribes. After the court has
found the Department’s notice efforts to comply with ICWA and
related California law, if no tribe had indicated minor is an
Indian child, the juvenile court shall re-instate the order
terminating parental rights; if any tribe indicates the child is an

                                3
Indian Child, the juvenile court shall proceed in accord with the
ICWA.
      The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                           MOOR, Acting P. J.

      We concur:

                   KIM, J.

                   LEE, J.

           Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                 4