In re E.M. CA2/4

Filed 11/17/21 In re E.M. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re E.M et al., Persons B309525 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 20CCJP04752 SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.M. and S.W., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie F. Blackshaw, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded in part; dismissed in part. Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant N.M. Lori Siegal, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.W. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of dependency proceedings concerning L.M. (mother),1 and her two children, E.M. and L.W. In the underlying proceedings, the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code 2 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) and ordered mother and the children’s respective fathers, N.M. and S.W., to participate in services. On appeal, N.M., E.M.’s father, contends only that the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. N.M. therefore seeks remand with directions for the Department to perform further inquiry in compliance with section 224.2, subdivision (e). The Department concedes it did not conduct an adequate inquiry and thus the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court for further ICWA inquiry and notice. For the reasons stated below, we agree and conditionally reverse the court’s disposition orders and remand the matter to the juvenile court so they may comply with ICWA requirements. Separately, S.W., L.W.’s father, challenges the portion of the dispositional order requiring him to participate in services. The Department contends S.W.’s appeal is moot. We agree and dismiss his appeal.

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.