Court Opinion

ID: 9555357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 19:04:19.692046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.468264
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/11/23 In re S.E. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.E., a Person Coming                                  B326244
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
                                                             19CCJP01726A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

A.E.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los Angeles, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Conditionally reversed
and remanded with instructions.
      Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant
County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Children’s Law Center 1, Ann-Marissa Cook and Janelle
Batta for Minor.

                    _________________________

       A.E. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating his parental rights to S.E. (the child) pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. According to
father, the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)
failed to satisfy their respective 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.)
regarding inquiry into the child’s possible Indian ancestry. No
interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, father, the
child, and the Department filed a joint application and
stipulation for conditional reversal and remand with directions to
the Department and the court to conduct a proper initial inquiry
and, if necessary, further inquiry and notice pursuant to ICWA
and related California statutes. Because, as explained below, the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision
(a)(8) have been met, we accept the stipulation.
       This case involves reversible error as the parties agree, and
we concur, there was noncompliance with the requirements of
ICWA and related California statutes. (See In re H.V. (2022) 75

                                 2
Cal.App.5th 433, 438.) The juvenile court failed to ask the
parents, during their first appearance on September 25, 2019, if
they knew or had reason to know that the child was an Indian
child; and, the record does not include ICWA-020 forms for the
parents. Further, the Department did not attempt to contact and
interview available extended family members, such as maternal
grandmother and maternal cousins, about the child’s possible
Indian ancestry. Finally, the Department made no effort to
obtain contact information for paternal grandparents or to
interview them.
       The parties also agree, and we concur, that (1) there is no
reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the
public will be adversely affected by the conditional reversal and
remand; and (2) the parties’ reasons for requesting reversal
outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the
nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of
stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial
settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)

                                3
                         DISPOSITION

      The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is
conditionally reversed and remanded for proceedings required by
this opinion. The court shall order the Department to make
reasonable efforts to obtain contact information for paternal
grandparents and contact and interview them and maternal
grandmother and maternal cousins about the child’s possible
Indian ancestry and to report on the results of its investigation.
Nothing in this disposition precludes the court from ordering
additional inquiry of others having an interest in the child, such
as additional extended family members known to the
Department. Nor does this disposition preclude the court from
inquiring directly of the parents whether they know or have
reason to know that the child is an Indian child or from
requesting that they complete ICWA-020 forms. Based on the
information reported, if the court determines that no additional
inquiry or notice to tribes is warranted, the order terminating
parental rights shall be reinstated. But if the court determines
additional inquiry or notice is warranted, it shall make all

                                4
necessary orders to ensure compliance with ICWA and related
California statutes.
      The remittitur shall issue 10 days from the filing of this
opinion.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           KIM, J.

I concur:

            RUBIN, P. J.

                                 5
In re S.E.
B326244

BAKER, J., Concurring

      I agree that a conditional reversal of the parental rights
termination order is required because the juvenile court did not
comply with federal and state law that, together, require a
juvenile court to ask participants in a child custody proceeding,
at the commencement of the proceeding and on the record,
whether the participant knows or has reason to know the minor
in question is an Indian child. (25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a); Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (c).) I do not agree, however, with the
majority’s broad remand instructions to interview paternal
grandparents, the maternal grandmother, and maternal cousins.
I would instead remand with directions that require the court to
make an on the record inquiry of only the parents (assuming they
appear in response to a hearing notice). The juvenile court
would, of course, still be free to make or order any additional
inquiry it deems appropriate.

                           BAKER, J.