Filed 6/9/22 In re I.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Nichelle L. Blackwell, Judge Pro Tempore or Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)

Megan Turkat Schrin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.C.

Suzanne M. Nicholson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.S.

Tarkian & Associates, Arezoo Pichavai, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of S.C (mother) and J.S. (father) to their child I.S. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Both parents appealed from the termination order, contending that it should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.) No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, the parents and the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remand.

This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) And, after reviewing the entire record, we find that the statutory requirements set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated reversal have been satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–382.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to I.S. under section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and remanded for the sole purpose of compliance with ICWA and related state statutes. On remand, the court shall proceed as follows:

1. The court shall order the Department to make initial inquiry of the parents and available extended maternal and paternal extended family members regarding whether the child is or may be an Indian child;

2. The court shall further order the Department to document its inquiry efforts and provide the court with a report of the results of those efforts;

3. At a noticed hearing with counsel for the parents, the court shall determine whether further inquiry and/or notice is required and make findings consistent with ICWA;

4. If the court determines ICWA does not apply, it shall reinstate the order terminating parental rights to I.S. If the court determines ICWA does apply because the child qualifies as an Indian child as defined by ICWA, the court shall proceed in accordance with ICWA.

The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.