Opinion
B325440
03-08-2024
In re KINGSTON Z. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. EVAN Z., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 21CCJP01767A-B, Cathy J. Ostiller, Judge and Ashley Price, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally affirmed with directions.
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SEGAL, Acting P. J.
Evan Z. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his sons Kingston Z. and Maverick Z. Evan's sole argument is that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services failed to comply with its duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. The Department concedes the error. We conditionally affirm with directions.
At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in June 2021 the juvenile court sustained petitions by the Department alleging counts under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j), based on allegations of physical abuse of the children by, and domestic violence between, Evan and the children's mother, Sabrina Z. The court declared Kingston and Maverick dependent children of the court, removed them from both parents, and ordered family reunification services.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The case eventually proceeded to permanency planning hearings. On October 20, 2022 the juvenile court ordered adoption as the permanent plan and set a permanency planning review hearing under section 366.26. Evan filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.
At the February 24, 2023 hearing under section 366.26, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. Evan filed a timely notice of appeal from those orders as well.
We consolidated the two appeals.
Evan argues, the Department concedes, and we agree the Department and the juvenile court did not comply with their duties under ICWA and California law to inquire whether Kingston and Maverick may be Indian children. In particular, Evan argues the Department did not ask the children's maternal grandmother, Nadia T., whether Kingston or Maverick may have any Indian ancestry, even though the Department had Nadia's contact information and communicated with her during the dependency proceedings. Evan asks us to "reverse or conditionally affirm the juvenile court's February 24, 2023, findings and orders, and to remand with orders that the Department comply with . . . ICWA inquiry requirements."
The Department "admits that it made no inquiry of maternal relatives, such as the maternal grandmother," and that the "record is silent as to any inquiry made of the maternal side of the family." The Department also concedes that Evan claimed "Cherokee heritage" and that the Department sent notices to three bands of Cherokee tribes, but that, "because the notices were not included in the record, it cannot be ascertained as to what information the tribes were provided." Therefore, the Department states, it "does not oppose remanding the matter to the juvenile court with directions to order the Department to conduct further inquiry and, if required by [ICWA], proceed in accordance with . . . ICWA[ ] notice mandates."
The Department also states it "does not oppose a conditional affirmance, and anticipates a stipulation to a conditional affirmance, remand, and issuance of a remittitur." The Department, however, never filed a stipulation, despite inquiry by this court.
Done. The orders terminating Evan's parental rights are conditionally affirmed. The juvenile court is directed to ensure the Department complies fully with its duties under ICWA and related California law.
We concur: FEUER, J. MARTINEZ, J.