In re O.T. CA2/5

Filed 2/17/23 In re O.T. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 O.T. et al., Persons Coming B316764 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, Nos. 18CCJP00880A, 18CCJP00880B, Plaintiff and Respondent, 18CCJP00880C, 18CCJP00880D) v.

L.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff Padilla, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed with directions. Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Mother appeals from the November 8, 2021 findings and orders denying her petition to change court orders under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388, placing her four children (minors) under the legal guardianship of their paternal grandmother, and terminating dependency jurisdiction. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply 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 solely for the court to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California statutes.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and father have four children, two of whom were born after the Department filed a petition under section 300 alleging the two oldest children were at risk of harm based on mother’s mental illness and father’s failure to protect.2 At a detention hearing in February 2018, mother and father filed