Court Opinion

ID: 9408198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:05:44.388111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.665861
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/11/23 In re J.D. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.D., a Person Coming                                        B325594
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                 (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                             Super. Ct.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                               No. 20CCJP04058A)

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 M.W.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Conditionally affirmed
and remanded.
      Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Children’s Law Center 5, Kristin Hallak and Andrew J.
Farestveit for Minor.
                      ——————————
     Mother1 appeals from the November 9, 2022 order
terminating parental rights over her son pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Mother’s sole contention on
appeal is that the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure
compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of 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.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief. Instead,
counsel for all parties, including the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department),
mother, and minor, filed a joint application and stipulation
requesting a conditional affirmance and remand to the juvenile
court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an
immediate remittitur.
       The parties agree that the record demonstrates that the
Department did not meet the initial inquiry requirements of
ICWA and related California statutes. (In re H.V. (2022)
75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438.) Mother and father denied Indian
ancestry in initial interviews, and mother filed an ICWA-020
form at her first court appearance. However, there is no evidence
in the record that the court or the Department asked father to

      1 Father   is not a party to the current appeal.
      2 The   child’s father is not a party to this appeal.

                                    2
complete and file an ICWA-020 form. In addition, the
Department did not ask available paternal relatives about the
possibility of Indian ancestry, even though social workers had in-
person contact with paternal grandfather and a paternal aunt.
      After reviewing the entire record, we find that the
statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure
section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated order remanding
the case with directions have been satisfied here. (In re
Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–382.)

                                3
                          DISPOSITION

       The juvenile court’s November 9, 2022, order terminating
parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26 is conditionally affirmed and remanded for proceedings
required by this opinion. The court shall order the Department
to make reasonable efforts to interview father and available
extended relatives, including paternal grandfather and paternal
aunt, about the possibility of the minor’s Indian ancestry and to
report on the results of the Department’s investigation. Nothing
in this disposition precludes the court from ordering additional
inquiry of others having an interest in the minor. Based on the
information reported, if the court determines that no additional
inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the order terminating
parental rights is to be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice
is warranted, the court shall make all necessary orders to ensure
compliance with ICWA and related California law.
       The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     MOOR, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             KIM, J.

                                 4