In re N.T. CA6

Filed 10/22/21 In re N.T. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re N.T., et al., Persons Coming Under H048922 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. __________________________________ Nos. 18JD025288, 18JD025289)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHIDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT1 Appellant, R.T., appeals from an order reinstating an order terminating her parental rights as to N.T. and X.T. Respondent, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) and R.T. jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the trial court failed to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and request that we remand the matter to the

1 Before Greenwood, P.J., Danner, J., and Wilson, J.

trial court for the limited purpose of complying with ICWA. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 10, 2019, the juvenile court terminated R.T.’s parental rights as to both children. R.T. appealed, claiming the Department failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under ICWA. (In re N.T. et al. (October 14, 2020, H047669) [nonpub. opn.].) This Court agreed and conditionally reversed the order, remanding the matter to the trial court for a further ICWA inquiry. Following remand, the Department conducted a further inquiry, and on March 2, 2021, the juvenile court found the renewed inquiry adequate. The court found that ICWA did not apply, and reinstated the December 10, 2019 order terminating R.T.’s parental rights. This timely appeal ensued. After R.T. filed her opening brief arguing that the Department’s renewed inquiry remained insufficient, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, R.T. contends that the Department made insufficient attempts to contact various family members who may have information about potential tribe membership. Because of this insufficient inquiry, the parties agree that the juvenile court erred when it found that ICWA did not apply. They further agree that this court is likely to reverse the order on appeal. To minimize delay, they jointly request that this court reverse and remand the matter for the limited purpose of allowing the Department to conduct a proper inquiry and send notice under ICWA as appropriate. The parties agree that if after proper inquiry and notice, the juvenile court finds that ICWA does not apply, the order terminating R.T.’s parental rights can be reinstated. (In re N.D. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 620, 624.) The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ.