Opinion
B166777.
10-27-2003
In re SARAH E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRIE LYN S., Defendant and Appellant.
Elizabeth F. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Terrie Lyn S., mother of Sarah E., appeals from the juvenile courts December 9, 2002, order detaining Sarah and placing her with her maternal aunt and the April 16, 2003, dispositional order declaring Sarah a dependent child and removing her from Mothers custody.
Mothers sole claim on appeal is that respondent failed to provide the notice required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.) with respect to Sarahs fathers possible Indian heritage through his paternal grandfather, Elwin C. E., who was living in Topock, Arizona.
By letter dated August 18, 2003, respondent stated that, having reviewed the appellate record, it "does not oppose reversal of the April 16, 2003 juvenile court disposition orders and remand to the juvenile court for the sole purpose of notifying the Bureau of Indian Affairs (`BIA), and any particular tribe that may be later identified, in conformity with the Indian Child Welfare Act (`ICWA), and with directions to reinstate the disposition orders if no tribe indicates that the child is an Indian child. (See In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 740.)" Respondent requests that the remittitur issue forthwith.
Respondent concedes that, "on December 9, 2002, [Mother] provided information to the juvenile court that . . . Sarah . . . may have American Indian heritage through her father, and thus, the notice requirements of the ICWA were triggered. [Citation.] . . . Therefore, notice will need to be given to the Area Director of the BIA, and, if any particular . . . tribe is identified, to that tribe."
In her opening appellate brief Mother contended that if Sarah is determined to be an Indian child, the juvenile court must conduct a new jurisdiction hearing. However, by letter dated September 3, 2003, Mother accepts respondents concession that the ICWA requirements were triggered and notice must be provided in accordance with the ICWA. Mother asks us to reverse the April 16, 2003, disposition orders, remand to the juvenile for proper notice, and issue the remittitur forthwith. Mother thus acknowledges that a new jurisdictional hearing is not required if Sarah is determined to be an Indian child.
DISPOSITION
The disposition orders of April 16, 2003, are reversed and the matter remanded to the juvenile court with directions that respondent provide proper notice under the ICWA of the pending proceedings, and file proof of receipt of such notice, along with a copy of the notice. If a tribe determines Sarah is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA, the court shall conduct a new dispositional hearing applying the provisions of the ICWA, Welfare and Institutions Code section 360.6, and rule 1439 of the California Rules of Court. Otherwise, all previous findings and orders shall be reinstated. In all other respects, the judgment (jurisdictional findings and orders of April 16, 2003) is affirmed. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties filed October 6, 2003, the clerk is directed to issue the remittitur forthwith.
We concur: VOGEL (Miriam A.), J. and MALLANO, J.