In re M.B. CA6

Filed 5/18/22 In re M.B. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.B., et al., Persons Coming Under H049593 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County __________________________________ Superior Court Nos. 19JD025621, 19JD025622) SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHIDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT1 Appellant, L.B., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights as to M.B. and G.B. Respondent, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) and L.B. 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 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.

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

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 13, 2021, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply and terminated L.B.’s parental rights as to both children. This timely appeal ensued. After L.B. filed his opening brief arguing that the Department’s ICWA inquiry was insufficient, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal. II. DISCUSSION On appeal L.B. contends that the Department failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under ICWA. He argues that although the children were placed with the maternal grandmother, and the Department was in contact with the paternal grandfather and a paternal aunt, the record does not reflect that they were ever asked about Native American ancestry. 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 L.B.’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. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. Summary reversal of the judgment would place the parties in the same position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion, would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the need for further briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court, and most