In re D.R. CA2/5

Filed 1/20/23 In re D.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.R. et al., Persons Coming B320853 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, Nos. 19CCJP07953A, 19CCJP07953B, Plaintiff and Respondent, 19CCJP07953C)

v.

S.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions. Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Children’s Law Center 2 and Stanley W. Wu for Minors. —————————— Father appeals the May 18, 2022 orders terminating parental rights over his three children (born in 2012, 2015, and 2017) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the order terminating parental rights is in error because the court failed to ensure compliance with the inquiry 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 father, minors, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) 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 stipulating 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. Specifically, despite being in contact with maternal grandparents and maternal aunt, there is no evidence social workers asked those relatives about the possibility of Indian ancestry.