In re Z.G. CA2/5 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/25/13 In re Z.G. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 Z.G., a Person Coming Under the                                B245353
    Juvenile Court Law.                                                  (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. CK84018)
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
    FAMILY SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    D.G.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A.
    Borenstein, Judge. Reversed with directions.
    Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and
    Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    D.G., the father of Z.G., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section
    366.26 parental rights termination order. The father contends there was noncompliance
    with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The Department of
    Children and Family Services agrees. We agree likewise. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 
    90 Cal.App.4th 731
    , 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 
    83 Cal.App.4th 460
    , 471-472.) The
    parental termination rights order is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the juvenile court
    is to comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state
    provisions. If no tribe seeks to intervene, the juvenile court is to reinstate the parental
    termination rights order. (In re Gabriel G. (2012) 
    206 Cal.App.4th 1160
    , 1168; In re
    Francisco W. (2006) 
    139 Cal.App.4th 695
    , 708.) We leave the issue of what to do if a
    tribe asserts jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile court.
    The parental termination rights order is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the
    juvenile court is to comply with the requirements imposed by the Indian Child Welfare
    Act and related state provisions. If no tribe seeks to intervene, the juvenile court is to
    reinstate the parental termination rights order.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    TURNER, P. J.
    We concur:
    KRIEGLER, J.                                       O’NEILL, J.*
    *
    Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
    pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B245353

Filed Date: 6/25/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014