In re E.H. CA2/5

Filed 9/21/22 In re E.H. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.H., A Person Coming B318112 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 18CCJP02744A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions. Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, William Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

S.E. (father) appeals from an order terminating his rights to his child E.H. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,1 contending that the termination order should be 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 (§ 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for father, the minor, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional affirmance 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.) The Department did not ask paternal uncle Oscar E., paternal aunt Brenda M., or maternal grandmother Yvette V. about Indian heritage even though each had been interviewed by a social worker for possible placement of the child and maternal grandmother had appeared in court. And, after reviewing the entire record, we find that the statutory