In re J.S. CA2/5

Filed 10/26/22 In re J.S. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.S., a Person Coming B319510 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 19CCJP05727D)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

O.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Father appeals from the March 2, 2022 order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 as to J.S. (minor). Father contends the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure 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.). We conditionally reverse and remand the matter solely for the court to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California statutes.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under section 300, alleging minor and his older half-siblings were at risk of harm based on domestic violence between father and mother.2 As part of the Department’s initial investigation, mother and father denied any Indian ancestry. Mother and father were not present at the July 1, 2020 detention hearing, but the court appointed counsel for each parent, and found that ICWA did not apply. The appellate record includes an ICWA-20 form signed by mother’s