In re H.A. CA2/5

Filed 4/4/25 In re H.A. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.A. et al., Persons Coming B335055 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, Nos. 23LJJP00363A-C)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.A. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra L. Gonzales, Temporary Judge. Dismissed. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Father, K.A. Janelle B. Price and Ellen Bacon Wiley, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mother, R.A. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dan Szrom for Minors, C.A. and S.A. Charles Inada for Non-Minor Dependent H.A.

K.A. (father) and R.A. (mother), are the adoptive parents of non-minor dependent Hannah A. (born in 2006), and minors C.A. (born in 2008), and S.A. (born in 2020). Mother and father filed separate notices of appeal challenging the juvenile court’s January 10, 2024 jurisdiction and disposition orders, after the juvenile court sustained petition allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), and (j), based on physical and emotional abuse and general neglect, and ordered all three children removed from parental custody.1 Both parents’ sole contention on appeal is that the January 10, 2024 orders incorrectly made an implicit finding of 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, counsel for all parties, including the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), parents, H.A., and minors, filed a joint application and stipulation agreeing that the Department failed to satisfy its inquiry obligations under ICWA and related California law and seeking a conditional reversal of the jurisdiction and disposition orders, remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA, and issuance of an immediate remittitur. We are not required to accept the parties’ agreement to conditionally reverse and remand the matter for ICWA compliance. (See California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 658, 664, [court in a civil case