Opinion
B325495
08-04-2023
In re D.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. L.C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Sarah Liebowitz for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 19LJJP00391A, Donald A. Buddle, Jr., Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sarah Liebowitz for the Minor.
BAKER, J.
L.C. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights over D.F. (Minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother asserts the juvenile court erred when it found the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply. Specifically, Mother contends the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to satisfy their inquiry obligations under ICWA and related California law in connection with Mother's claim of possible Indian heritage. Mother, DCFS, and Minor have stipulated to a conditional reversal and a remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties' stipulation.
Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal and remand in the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error because, as the parties agree and we concur, DCFS did not communicate with Minor's maternal grandmother after the grandmother said she would contact other familial relatives to see if any had information concerning whether Minor may be an Indian child. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a) ["The court, county welfare department, and the probation department have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition under Section 300, 601, or 602 may be or has been filed, is or may be an Indian child"]; In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984, 998.) Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit compliance with ICWA and corresponding California law absent the parties' stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). Specifically, we find the interests of non-parties or the public are not adversely affected by our acceptance of the stipulation and the remand will not erode public trust or reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (See In re Rashad H., supra, at 379-382; Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's December 6, 2022, parental rights termination order is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of documenting compliance with ICWA and related California law.
The juvenile court is directed to re-appoint counsel for Mother and to order DCFS to investigate Mother's claims of Indian heritage by re-interviewing Minor's maternal grandmother and making efforts to contact any additional relatives Mother or Minor's maternal grandmother identify as possibly having information regarding whether Minor is an Indian child. If, after proper investigation is documented by DCFS and found to have been undertaken by the juvenile court, the court finds that ICWA does not apply, the court shall reinstate the parental rights termination order. If the juvenile court finds that ICWA does apply, it shall proceed as required by ICWA and related California provisions. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the remittitur shall issue 20 days after the filing of this opinion.
We concur: RUBIN, P. J., MOOR, J.