In re T.C. CA2/5

Filed 12/28/22 In re T.C. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.C. et al., Persons Coming B320484 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, Nos. 18LJJP00463A, 18LJJP00463B, Plaintiff and Respondent, 18LJJP00463C)

v.

T.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan Ser, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded. Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.C.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.B. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nancy Sarinana for Minors. —————————— T.C. (mother) and D.B. (father) separately appeal from the May 11, 2022 order terminating parental rights over their three children (born July 2013, December 2015, and October 2017) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Both parents contend 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 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief. Instead, counsel for all parties, including the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), parents, and minors, filed a joint application and stipulation requesting a conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remittitur. The parties agree, and we concur, the record demonstrates that the Department did not meet the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438.) Although the parents both denied Indian ancestry, neither the court nor the Department asked available extended relatives about the possibility of Indian ancestry. Paternal grandmother was present in court at a hearing on November 25, 2019, but the court did not conduct an