Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK69892, Valerie Skeba, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Kate M. Chandler for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, O. Raquel Ramirez, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Lindsay Yoshiyama for Minor.
TURNER, P. J.
J.S.R., the father of the child, Jose R., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. The father contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The parties, including counsel for the child, have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions and for immediate remittitur issuance. We accept the parties’ stipulation. The parties agree there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. We concur in their assessment in this regard. Further, the parties agree the parental rights termination order must be reversed and remanded to permit proof of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions.
Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal is controlled by our prior decision in the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error; the failure to present substantial evidence of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and its related California provisions. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Because the parental rights termination order would be reversed under any circumstances, a stipulated reversal advances those interests identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for the reasons we explained in the case of In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pages 379-382. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.) If proper notice is provided and no tribe asserts that the children are of Indian descent, the parental rights termination order is to be reinstated. If a tribe asserts that the child is of Indian descent, the juvenile court is to proceed in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions.
The Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order is reversed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. This opinion is final forthwith. The remittitur is to issue forthwith.
We concur: KRIEGLER, J., KUMAR, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.