In re A.B. CA2/5

Filed 3/16/23 In re A.B. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.B., a Person Coming B322514 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 20CCJP04094A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed with directions. Elizabeth A. Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Mother appeals from the order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 as to A.B. (minor). 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 the matter solely for the court to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California statutes.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Our summary is limited to the facts and procedure relevant to mother’s claim that the Department’s ICWA inquiry efforts were inadequate. Shortly after minor’s birth, the Department filed and the court sustained a petition alleging minor was a child described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1) based on mother’s substance abuse and father’s failure to protect.2 Both parents filed ICWA-20 forms denying any Indian ancestry, and the court found ICWA inapplicable.