In re D.R. CA2/5

Filed 1/20/23 In re D.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.R. et al., Persons Coming B320853
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, Nos. 19CCJP07953A,
19CCJP07953B,
Plaintiff and Respondent, 19CCJP07953C)
v.
S.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and
remanded with instructions.
Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Children’s Law Center 2 and Stanley W. Wu for Minors.
——————————
Father appeals the May 18, 2022 orders terminating
parental rights over his three children (born in 2012, 2015, and
2017) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the order terminating
parental rights is in error because the court failed to ensure
compliance with the inquiry 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
father, minors, and the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint
application and stipulation requesting a conditional reversal and
remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the
issuance of an immediate remittitur.
The stipulating parties agree, and we concur, the record
demonstrates that the Department did not meet the initial
inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions.
(In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438.) Although the
parents both denied Indian ancestry, neither the court nor the
Department asked available extended relatives about the
possibility of Indian ancestry. Specifically, despite being in
contact with maternal grandparents and maternal aunt, there is
no evidence social workers asked those relatives about the
possibility of Indian ancestry.
2
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 reversal have been
satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–
382.)
3
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s May 18, 2022, orders terminating
parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26 are conditionally reversed and remanded for proceedings
required by this opinion. The court shall order the Department
to make reasonable efforts to interview available extended
relatives, including maternal grandparents and maternal 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 orders terminating
parental rights are 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.
I concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
4
In re D.R. et al.
B320853
BAKER, J., Dissenting
I would reject the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter
to the juvenile court. For reasons I have previously explained at
length, 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, J.