In re A.M. CA2/5

Filed 6/21/22 In re A.M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.M. et al., Persons Coming B316989 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP04392A–B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tara Newman, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.S.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.V. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

Mother D.S. and father E.V. appeal from an order terminating their parental rights over their child A.V. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother also appeals from an order terminating her parental rights over her child A.M. Both parents contend that the termination orders should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for the parents, minors, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remand. This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) And, after reviewing the entire record, we find that the statutory requirements set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated reversal