In re James B. CA2/5

Filed 5/11/22 In re James 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 James B., A Person Coming B316650 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 20CCJP03414A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff R. Padilla, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nancy Sarinana, Children’s Law Center, for Minor. Dawyn Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Mother appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the juvenile court erred when it determined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law as to mother’s possible Indian heritage. Mother, DCFS, and son have stipulated to a conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation. The conditions that must be satisfied before an appellate court may accept a stipulated reversal are set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). (See In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382 [appellate court found § 128 (a)(8) factors present in dependency appeal].) This appeal presents a claim of reversible error based on the parties’ agreement that DCFS did not comply with ICWA and related California law. (See In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) We find a stipulated conditional reversal and remand advances the interests identified by section 128(a)(8), specifically that: “(A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal,” and “(B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (§ 128(a)(8); see In re Rashad H., supra, at pp. 379- 382.)