Court Opinion

ID: 9946567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 21:02:32.146062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:54.428652
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/29/24 In re A.B. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.B. et al., Persons Coming                              B331383
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         Super. Ct.
AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           No. 21CCJP01452B-C)

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

T.B.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay, III, Judge. Conditionally
reversed with directions.
      Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel and William D. Thetford, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Dan Szrom, Children’s Law Center 1, for minors.
                     ——————————

      T.B. (father) appeals from the August 17, 2023 order
terminating his parental rights to two of his children born in July
2018 (minors) 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

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

                                 2
absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the
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 August 17, 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 order the Department to make reasonable efforts to inquire of
all of minors’ known and available extended paternal and
maternal family members and to submit to the juvenile court a
report of its interviews or efforts to conduct the interviews. If,
based on the initial inquiry, there is reason to believe an Indian
child may be involved but not yet sufficient information to
determine if notice must be provided to a tribe or tribes, the
Department is to conduct further inquiry pursuant to section
224.2, subdivision (e). At a noticed hearing, with counsel for
father reappointed, the juvenile court shall determine whether
adequate inquiry and any necessary notice has been made and
make findings as required by ICWA. If the court finds the ICWA
is not applicable, it shall reinstate the order terminating parental

                                 3
rights. If notice is required and any tribe indicates the child is an
Indian Child, the juvenile court shall proceed in accord with the
ICWA.
      The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                            MOOR, J.

      I concur:

                  KIM, J.

                                 4
In re A.B. et al.
B331383

BAKER, Acting P. J., Dissenting

       I would reject the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter
to the juvenile court. For reasons I have previously explained,
this court cannot properly make the findings required by Code of
Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). (In re A.C. (2022)
86 Cal.App.5th 130, 141-144 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); In re H.V.
(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 441 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); see also In
re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380 [“[T]here could be
an adverse effect on the adoptive parents’ rights if there were a
stipulated reversal of a Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26 parental termination rights order. A stipulated reversal
could further delay the conclusion of the adoption process”].)

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.