In re G.L. CA6

Filed 6/23/22 In re G.L. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the matter of G.L., et al., Minors. H049776 __________________________________ (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 20JD026534 & 20JD026535) SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT1 Appellant, E.L., mother of G.L. and M.L., appeals from an order issued after a February 2, 2022 selection and implementation hearing where the trial court appointed the maternal grandparents as the legal guardians for the children. Respondent, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department), and E.L. jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and request that we remand

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

the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the Department’s trial court filings, the maternal grandparents confirmed on July 27, 2020, that they had no Native American ancestry, stating they were from Mexico. E.L. also denied Indian ancestry for herself and stated she did not know about the children’s father’s ancestry during the course of the proceedings. However, at a hearing on October 5, 2021, E.L. stated she believed she had Indian ancestry but had not studied her family’s history and did not know if they had ancestry in a tribe in California. She also stated that she and the children had never lived on a reservation, did not have tribal identification cards, and that the children had never been wards of a tribal court. Neither the court nor the Department investigated Indian ancestry further prior to the selection hearing. The Department failed to take advantage of several opportunities to ask the children’s father about his heritage and failed to follow up with the maternal grandparents or other maternal relatives regarding E.L.’s disclosure of Indian ancestry in Mexico. Based on the evidence before it, in appointing the maternal grandparents as the legal guardians for the children, the court found that ICWA did not apply. E.L. timely appealed this order. After E.L. filed her opening brief, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, E.L. contends that the trial court’s order must be reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court because the court failed to ensure compliance with ICWA. She argues that the Department’s failure to do further investigation about Indian ancestry violated ICWA. The Department concedes that the investigation was insufficient, and 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