In re K.B. CA2/5

Filed 8/18/15 In re K.B. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.B., et al, Persons Coming Under the B259716 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK05606)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn Mordetzky, Referee, Steff R. Padilla, Commissioner. The jurisdictional order is conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions. The appeal as to the dispositional order is dismissed. Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladin, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (section 300) petition alleging that two-year-old K.B. and one-year-old S.B. came within the court’s jurisdiction. On appeal, S.A. (mother) contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding as to her; the juvenile court erred in entering a dispositional order removing her children from her custody because the order is not supported by substantial evidence and the juvenile court failed to consider less drastic alternatives to removal; and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or Act) (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) and the juvenile court erred in finding that the ICWA did not apply. Because the Department did not comply with the ICWA’s notice provisions, we conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and remand this case with directions to the juvenile court to ensure full compliance with the ICWA. We dismiss the appeal as to the dispositional order because it is moot.