Filed 2/7/22 In re K.K. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re K.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B314099 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP00798A)
|
|
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
APRIL W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff R. Padilla, Judge Pro Tempore. Reversed and remanded with.
Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Liu & Naime and Craig Liu for Minor.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
April W. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights over K.K. (minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it determined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) satisfied its inquiry and notice obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law in connection with minor’s possible Indian heritage. Counsel for mother, minor, and the Department, have stipulated to a limited 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 the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with ICWA and related California provisions. (In re K.R. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 701, 706–709; see also In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit compliance with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and rules absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That is to say, 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; see also Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329–1330.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s July 21, 2021 order terminating parental rights under section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded for the limited purpose of demonstrating full compliance with ICWA and related California law.
The juvenile court is directed to re-appoint counsel for Mother, to order the Department to conduct further inquiry into both mother and father’s claims of Indian heritage, and to thereafter comply with notice requirements set forth in ICWA and corresponding California statutes. If the juvenile court determines that after a proper investigation (to include efforts to interview the minor’s available relatives, including maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and paternal aunt), relevant information known to the Department (including information about minor’s birth certificate and parentage determination, mother’s current address, father’s date of birth, the maternal and paternal grandparents’ names, the paternal great and great-great grandfather’s names, and the paternal aunt’s information) is included on any required notice (including notices to the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, United Keetoowah Band, and any other relevant tribes as discovered upon further investigation), and if no tribe indicates minor is an Indian child, the juvenile court shall reinstate the termination of parental rights order. If a tribe asserts minor is an Indian child, the juvenile court is to proceed in compliance with ICWA and related California provisions. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the remittitur shall issue forthwith.
MOOR, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P.J.
KIM, J.
[1] Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.
