In re A.E. CA2/1

Filed 8/11/22 In re A.E. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.E., a Person Coming Under B316626 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05794)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SARA S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sara S. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Michael E. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________ In these dependency proceedings Sara S. (mother) and Michael E. (father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights over A.E., their eight-year-old son, contending the court erred in finding the lack of a complete inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) to be nonprejudicial. We agree, and thus reverse with directions to order a further ICWA inquiry. BACKGROUND We will limit the presentation of facts to those pertinent to the only disputed issue on appeal: Whether the failure of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to make inquiries under ICWA requires reversal. In a prior dependency case in 2014, mother and father both submitted a signed ICWA 020 form in which they indicated they had no American Indian ancestry. The juvenile court found there was no reason to suspect A.E. was an Indian child as defined by ICWA, and therefore found the child did not fall within the provisions of ICWA. The court ordered the parents to keep the department, their attorney and the court aware of any new information relating to possible ICWA status.