In re D.S. CA2/1

Filed 4/16/13 In re D.S. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the B243498 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK49052)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Reversed with directions. California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Anne E. Fragasso for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Melinda A. Green, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Joseph S. (Father) appeals from a July 23, 2012 order terminating his parental rights over D.S. (born in 1998) and D.S. (born in 2002) (collectively minors), contending that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court‟s finding that proper notice was given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Father argues that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA because the notices it sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) did not include all available information regarding paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother. Father also contends notice should have been sent to Arizona tribes. Natasha J. (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. We agree with Father‟s contentions and reverse the July 23, 2012 order terminating Father‟s and Mother‟s parental rights and remand the case to the juvenile court with directions to order DCFS to provide the BIA and Arizona tribes with proper notice of the proceedings under the ICWA. If, after receiving proper notice, a tribe determines the minors are Indian children as defined by the ICWA, the court shall proceed in conformity with the provisions of the ICWA. If no tribe indicates the minors are Indian children within the meaning of the ICWA, the court shall reinstate the order terminating Father‟s and Mother‟s parental rights over the minors. BACKGROUND We discuss only the facts pertinent to this appeal regarding the ICWA notice and not the facts leading up to the filing of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions on behalf of the minors and the termination of parental rights.1 Father appeared at a May 21, 2002 detention hearing at which the following discussion regarding possible Indian heritage occurred. The juvenile court asked, “Are either one of [the minors] eligible to enroll in the American-Indian tribe?” Father replied, “Well, I mean, like my, um, grandmother and everybody said I was Indian but like –– they‟re like prejudiced, so I haven‟t been like really raised around any of my Indian- American family because they kind of resented my mama because my daddy was black.