In re H.I. CA4/1
Filed 6/2/22 In re H.I. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.I., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080099 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J520911) v. E.S. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Richard L. Knight under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.S. Sarah Vaona under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant H.I.
1
Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Dana Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION E.S. (Mother) and H.I. Sr. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders adjudicating their child, H.I., a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),
and removing him from their custody.1 They contend the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and section 224.2. The Agency concedes it did not comply with its inquiry duties under ICWA and section 224.2, and agrees, the juvenile court erred in finding ICWA did not apply. 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).2 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.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)