In re V.S. CA2/4

Filed 1/22/26 In re V.S. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re V.S., a Person Coming B342510 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos: DK22355, DK22355B ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. V.S.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tiana J. Murillo, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Mother Vanessa S. challenges the juvenile court’s finding that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and corresponding California law. We find that DCFS failed to comply with its statutory duty to inquire of Mr. L., one of V.’s two legal guardians, about whether V. may be an Indian child. We find no error with respect to mother’s other contentions. We therefore conditionally reverse and remand for the limited purpose of completing an inquiry of V.’s guardian, Mr. L. The background of this case is discussed in In re V.S. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1154. V. was removed from mother at the time of her birth in March 2017. (Id. at p. 1158.) By April 2018, V. was living with maternal great-aunt Ms. L. and her husband, Mr. L. V. has remained living with the L.s; they were appointed her legal guardians in May 2019, and they want to adopt her. Throughout the case, mother and V.’s father denied any Indian ancestry. They both denied any Indian ancestry in 2017

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.