In re W.R. CA2/5

Filed 8/23/22 In re W.R. CA2/5 Posting correct version NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 W.R., a Person Coming B317699 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00542C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions.

Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

J.W. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to W.R. (the child) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Her sole argument on appeal is that the order should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for mother and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remand. After reviewing the record, we agree with the parties that this case involves reversible error because the Department failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions, and the juvenile court failed to ensure the Department’s compliance. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) The record reflects that the Department had contacts with the maternal