In re D.M. CA2/5

Filed 9/12/22 In re D.M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.M. et al., Persons Coming B318948 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. Nos. 20CCJP01503A, AND FAMILY SERVICES, 20CCJP01503B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SANDY H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Children’s Law Center 1 and Ann-Marissa Cook for Minor D.M. Children’s Law Center 3 and Nancy Sarinana for Minor A.M. —————————— Sandy H. (mother) appeals from the February 18, 2022 orders terminating her parental rights over her children D.M. and A.M. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the termination order should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for mother, minors, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and stipulation for a limited reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remittitur. 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 Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) During the course of the proceedings, the Department was in contact with extended family members including, paternal grandmother and prospective adoptive parent, paternal uncle, paternal great-uncle, maternal