Court Opinion

ID: 9943233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 21:04:01.853822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:33.438771
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 In re M.S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.S., a Person Coming                                  B331208
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
                                                             21CCJP01935)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

J.H.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Conditionally affirmed
and remanded.
      Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Sally Son, Senior
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

           _________________________________________

      J.H. (mother) appeals from an order denying her Welfare
and Institutions Code section 3881 petition and an order
terminating parental rights to M.S. (the child) pursuant to
section 366.26. We conditionally affirm and remand.
      The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore
resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and
consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14
[“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that
determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis
v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted
[three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies
constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in
reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the
reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based,
[an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by
counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)
      Mother contends that the juvenile court and the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

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

                                 2
(Department) did not comply with their inquiry obligations under
the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.). According to
mother, the Department failed to interview known maternal
relatives—maternal grandmother M.O.; maternal uncles C.H.,
R.H., and J.H.; and maternal aunt M.H.—and any paternal
relatives2 about the child’s possible Indian ancestry.
      The Department concedes error and requests that we
conditionally affirm the order terminating mother’s parental
rights3 to the child and remand the matter for IWCA inquiry
compliance.
      We agree with the parties that this case involves reversible
error because there was noncompliance with the requirements of
ICWA and related California law. (See In re H.V. (2022) 75
Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483,
489.) Specifically, the Department did not interview the child’s
maternal grandmother, maternal uncles, maternal aunt, or
paternal relatives about Indian ancestry. We will therefore
conditionally affirm and remand for further proceedings.

2     This allegation may be inaccurate as the Department
contacted Marilyn S., who is described as a maternal aunt but
appears to be a paternal aunt, and inquired about Indian
ancestry.

3    The Department does not include the order denying
mother’s section 388 petition. This appears to be an oversight.

                                 3
                         DISPOSITION

       The juvenile court’s order denying mother’s section 388
petition and the order terminating mother’s parental rights to the
child are conditionally affirmed and remanded for further
proceedings required by this opinion. The court shall order the
Department to make reasonable efforts to interview available
extended maternal family members, including maternal
grandmother M.O.; maternal uncles C.H., R.H., and J.H.; and
maternal aunt M.H., and any available extended paternal family
members about the possibility of the child’s Indian ancestry and
to report on the results of those efforts. Nothing in this
disposition precludes the court from ordering additional inquiry
of others having an interest in the child. Based on the
information reported, if the court determines that no additional
inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the order terminating
mother’s 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.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          KIM, J.

I concur:

            MOOR, J.

                                4
In re M.S.
B331208

BAKER, Acting P. J., Dissenting

      I would affirm unconditionally because substantial
evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the Indian
Child Welfare Act does not apply. (In re A.C. (2022) 86
Cal.App.5th 130, 132 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); In re Ezequiel G.
(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984; In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433,
439 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.).)

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.