In re Y.D. CA4/1

Filed 5/5/22 In re Y.D. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Y.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080004 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4727A,B) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Christine E. Johnson under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

1

Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) concedes it did not comply with its inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 224.2. And thus it agrees, the juvenile court erred in finding that reasonable inquiry had been made into the possible Indian ancestry of Y.D. and G.D. (the Children) and that ICWA did not apply, allowing the court to declare them dependents and removing them from their father, R.D. (Father). On the record before us, we agree with the Agency’s concession. The parties have submitted a joint stipulation for issuance of an immediate remittitur pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1). We will reverse the jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remand the matter with directions for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA and section 224.2. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2021, the Agency filed dependency petitions for then one- year-old Y.D. and then one-month-old G.D.. At the detention hearing, Father’s counsel informed the juvenile court that Father claimed Cherokee ancestry. Father had no specific information but stated the paternal grandmother would have the most relevant information about such ancestry.