In re Z.G.
D.G., the father of Z.G., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. The father contends there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The Department of Children and Family Services agrees. We agree likewise. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) The parental termination rights order is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the juvenile court is to comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. If no tribe seeks to intervene, the juvenile court is to reinstate the parental termination rights order. (In re Gabriel G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1168; In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 708.) We leave the issue of what to do if a tribe asserts jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile court.
The parental termination rights order is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the juvenile court is to comply with the requirements imposed by the Indian Child Welfare Act and related state provisions. If no tribe seeks to intervene, the juvenile court is to reinstate the parental termination rights order.
Comments on In re Z.G.