In re K.B. CA2/5

Filed 7/27/22 In re K.B. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.B. et al., Persons Coming B317711 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 21CCJP01142A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Conditionally affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Marissa Coffey, 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 for the Minor.

__________________________________

P.G. (Mother) appeals from juvenile court orders establishing a legal guardianship over K.B. and K.S. (Minors) and terminating dependency jurisdiction. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in two ways: (1) by delegating authority to the appointed guardian to determine whether and when visitation between Mother and Minors would occur; and (2) by not ensuring adequate inquiry into whether Mother or the Minors’ father, M.B., have any Indian heritage such that Minors would qualify as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law. Mother, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and Minors have stipulated to a conditional affirmance of the guardianship order and a limited reversal of the order terminating dependency jurisdiction to remedy these deficiencies. We accept the parties’ stipulation. Our ability to accept the parties’ stipulation in the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382 (Rashad H.). The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with (1) law governing visitation when a guardianship order is made (see, e.g., In re Rebecca S. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-1314) and (2) ICWA and related California provisions (see, e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subds.