Filed 4/18/18 In re A.E. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re A.E., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069717

(Super.Ct.No. SWJ1600186)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith C. Clark, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and Prabhath Dev Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
J.E. (father), the father of A.E., H.E. and O.E., appealed from a judgment terminating his parental rights as to the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Father filed an opening brief contending that the juvenile court failed to adequately comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.480 et seq.) On March 21, 2018, the parties filed a joint application and stipulation for reversal of judgment and remand. After our own careful review of the entire record, we conclude that the juvenile court did fail to adequately comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA, and we reverse with the requested directions.
FACTS
The children were detained on March 23, 2016. The amended petition and detention report noted that father said he may have Cherokee Indian ancestry. At the detention hearing, based on father’s information, the juvenile court declared that ICWA may apply and directed the Riverside Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to give notice under ICWA. The ICWA notices sent by DPSS omitted part of father’s mother’s name and her birthdate. Her former address and place of birth were missing. J.E.’s father’s date of birth was incomplete, and his former address and place of birth were missing. The former address for father’s grandfather was missing. Part of father’s grandmothers’ information was missing. The form also stated it was unknown if there was a judicial declaration of parentage when the court had declared J.E. the presumed father.
The children remained placed with the paternal grandparents from whom DPSS could have gotten much of the information needed for the ICWA notices. At times, the paternal grandparents attended court hearings.
On June 13, 2016, the court found that ICWA notice was proper and ICWA did not apply.
The court terminated father’s parental rights at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing held December 14, 2017.
STIPULATION
A stipulated reversal under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) is permissible in a dependency case when the parties agree that reversible error occurred, and the stipulated reversal will expedite the final resolution of the case on the merits. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380-382.) In the stipulation, the parties agree that insufficient notice was provided under the provisions of ICWA and that reversal of the judgment is appropriate with directions to the juvenile court to make a proper ICWA inquiry. Notice under ICWA must contain sufficient information to determine the child’s direct ancestors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a)(5); In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703.) Reversal is therefore appropriate given the Department’s and juvenile court’s failure to provide adequate ICWA notice. (See e.g., In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.) Although only father appealed, the parental rights termination order must be reversed as to both mother and father. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 208.)

DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is reversed as to both parents.
The juvenile court is directed to order the Department to provide adequate notice which contains information concerning father’s relatives pursuant to the provisions of ICWA. If after proper notice and inquiry, a tribe determines that the minors are Indian children as defined by ICWA, the juvenile court is directed to conduct a new Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing in conformity with the provisions of ICWA. If there is no response or the tribes determine that the minors are not Indian children, the juvenile court is directed to reinstate all previous findings and terminate parental rights.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the clerk of this court is directed to issue the remittitur immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


RAMIREZ
Presiding Justice

We concur:


McKINSTER
J.


MILLER
J.