In re L.T. CA2/5

Filed 6/24/22 In re L.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.T., et al., Persons Coming B315938 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 18LJJP00394A–C) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ann-Marissa Cook, Children’s Law Center, for Minors.

Father appeals from an order terminating parental rights to his three children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 He 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; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law as to the children’s possible Indian heritage. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, father, DCFS, and the children filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation. 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 Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) 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 have been satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–382.) DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s July 27, 2021, order terminating parental rights over son is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with the following directions.