Court Opinion

ID: 9407927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:04:29.856472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.710131
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/10/23 In re M.T. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.T. et al., Persons Coming                                 B325401
Under Juvenile Court Law.
_______________________________                                   (Los Angeles County Super.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                 Ct. No. 20LJJP00779A-B)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.B.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Stephanie Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally
reversed and remanded with directions.
      John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant
County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Sarah Liebowitz, Children’s Law Center 3, for Minors.
                     ________________________
      Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental
rights to her two children under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court failed to
satisfy its inquiry obligations and erred when it determined the
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related
California law as to the children’s possible Indian heritage. No
interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother,
DCFS, and the children filed a joint application and stipulation
for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to order
DCFS to inquire of available maternal extended family members
in compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept
the parties’ stipulation.
      This case involves reversible error because the parties
agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry
requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re
H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Benjamin M. (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Here, DCFS only inquired with the
parents and the paternal grandmother regarding Native
American ancestry. DCFS did not ask the extended family
members about heritage. After reviewing the entire record, we
find that the statutory requirements set forth at Code of Civil
Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated reversal
have been satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th
376, 379–382.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s November 10, 2022 orders terminating
parental rights to the children are conditionally reversed, and the
matter is remanded to the juvenile court for proceedings required

                                2
by this opinion. The juvenile court shall reappoint counsel for the
parents. The juvenile court shall order DCFS to make reasonable
efforts to interview available extended family members about the
possibility of the children’s Indian ancestry and to report to the
court the results of DCFS’s investigation. Based on the
information reported, if the court determines that no additional
inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the orders terminating
parental rights shall be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice
is warranted, the juvenile court will make all necessary orders to
ensure compliance with ICWA and related California law. The
remittitur shall issue forthwith.1

                                      RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                        MOOR, J.

                        KIM, J.

1     The parties, in the documents filed in this appeal,
inconsistently asked this court to issue the remittitur forthwith
and in 20 days. In light of documents filed and the urgency of the
matter before us, we direct the clerk to issue the remittitur
forthwith.

                                  3