Opinion
B166811.
11-3-2003
In re ZACHARY S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIE B., Defendants and Appellants.
John L. Dodd & Associates, Ellen L. Bacon, for Defendant and Appellant Bruce S. Marsha Faith Levine, for Defendant and Appellant Marie B. Law Offices of Anne E. Fraggaso and Debra Bernard, for the minor. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, and Stephanie J. Farrell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bruce S. and Marie B., the parents of the child, Zachary S., appeal from an order entered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The parties, including counsel for the child, have presented a joint stipulation for reversal of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanent plan order to allow compliance with the notice provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) For the following reasons, we accept the stipulation.
Any stipulated reversal must meet the standards imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). In this case, our ability to accept the stipulation to reverse 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 give notice to the tribe as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740;In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472;In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1421-1422; In re Junious M. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 786, 790-791.) Because the permanent plan 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 Rashad H. (In re Rashad H. , supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pp. 379-382; see Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.)
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 notice requirements. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the remittitur is to issue forthwith.
We concur: GRIGNON, J. and MOSK, J.