In re M.R. CA2/5

Filed 3/13/25 In re M.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.R., a Person Coming B340007 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 22CCJP01906A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.S. Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.R. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Kelly G. Emling, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Taylor Lindsley for Minor.

E.R. (mother) and D.S. (father) separately appeal from the August 14, 2024 order terminating parental rights to their child M.R. (minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Both parents contend the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to satisfy its duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief. Instead, counsel for all parties, including the Department, parents, and minor, filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand with directions to order the Department to inquire of maternal and paternal extended family members whether minor is or may be an Indian child and to file a report detailing its efforts and the results thereof.1 The parties’ stipulation further provides for the juvenile court to reappoint counsel for the parents and hold a noticed hearing to address ICWA compliance. Depending on the results of the inquiry, the juvenile court would either proceed in compliance with ICWA or reinstate the order terminating parental rights. The parties agree, and we concur, that this case involves reversable error because there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California statutes. Specifically, the Department had contact with paternal grandfather Refugio S. and paternal aunts Jennifer S. and Jessica H. but did not ask them about whether minor was or