Opinion
D082387
09-21-2023
In re K.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.D., Defendant and Appellant. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. EJ4777 Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it "is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application." (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(1).)
KELETY, J.
D.D. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's May 22, 2023 six-month review order declining to return Father's minor son, K.D., to his custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) Father's sole contention on appeal is that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its further inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and section 224.2.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
This is Father's second appeal based on the Agency's deficient inquiry under ICWA. (In re K.D. (Jan. 6, 2023, D080817) [nonpub. opn].)
Specifically, Father contends, and the Agency concedes, that the Agency's ICWA inquiry was deficient because the Agency failed to ask Mother's two siblings, maternal grandmother, and three maternal uncles about K.D.'s possible Native American ancestry. (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A).) Additionally, the Agency concedes its April 11, 2023 inquiry letters sent to the Cherokee and Blackfeet tribes contained incorrect and incomplete information, including erroneously identifying paternal grandfather as deceased and failing to include information regarding Mother's siblings and three uncles. (Id. at subd. (e)(2)(C).) For these reasons, the parties agree that a conditional reversal and limited remand for compliance with ICWA is warranted.
Because we conclude substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's findings that reasonable inquiry had been made into K.D.'s possible Native American ancestry and that ICWA did not apply, we accept the Agency's concession and conditionally reverse the May 22, 2023 order with a limited remand for the Agency to comply with ICWA and section 224.2. We additionally accept the parties' joint stipulation to immediate issuance of the remittitur.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's May 22, 2023 order is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions that the Agency comply with the inquiry provisions of ICWA and section 224.2. If, after completing ICWA inquiry, neither the Agency nor the juvenile court has reason to know K.D. is an Indian child, the order entered at the May 22, 2023 hearing shall be immediately reinstated. If the Agency or juvenile court has reason to know K.D. is an Indian child, the court shall proceed accordingly.
By stipulation of the parties, the clerk of this court is directed to issue the remittitur immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
WE CONCUR: DATO, Acting P. J. CASTILLO, J.