In re A.J. CA2/1

Filed 5/18/16 In re A.J. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the B267099 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK73523)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HENRY J. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Cameryn Schmidt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Henry J. Deborah Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sabrina M. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Henry J. (father) and Sabrina M. (mother) appeal from the termination of their parental rights over A.J. (A.J.). The sole issue raised by father and mother is that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). DCFS concedes the inadequacy of its notices, and we reverse and remand for compliance. BACKGROUND A.J., born in early 2012, was the subject of a dependency petition filed February 8, 2012. The Indian child inquiry attachment filed with the petition indicated that father told the social worker that his paternal great-grandmother was Cherokee, and his maternal great-grandmother was Choctaw Nation; he was unsure whether either was registered with the respective tribes. Nevertheless, on the same date both parents filed parental notification of Indian status stating that they knew of no Indian ancestry, and the trial court found that ICWA did not apply. The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed February 27, 2012, stated that on February 23, 2012, father indicated that his paternal great-grandmother possibly had Cherokee heritage, and a maternal great-grandmother possibly had Choctaw heritage. The juvenile court declared A.J. a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j) on July 31, 2012. A December 3, 2012 detention report and a January 23, 2013 jurisdiction/disposition report regarding a supplemental petition stated that ICWA did not apply, and DCFS stated in a January 29, 2013 status review report that the court had determined that this was not an ICWA case. This court reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders on mother’s appeal on September 10, 2013, and directed the court to hold a new jurisdictional hearing. (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Servs. v. Sabrina M. (Sept. 7, 2012, B243398) [nonpub. opn.].) DCFS subsequently filed an amended petition on October 21, 2013, representing that an ICWA inquiry had been made and A.J. had no known Indian ancestry. A jurisdiction/disposition report on the same date stated that on February 8, 2012, the court found ICWA did not apply. Father filed an appeal from the findings on