In re Daniel T. CA2/1

Filed 3/21/23 In re Daniel T. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DANIEL T. II et al., Persons B318532 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02124)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Linda J. Vogel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________ In these dependency proceedings Daniel T. (father) appeals from juvenile court dispositional orders that removed his children, Daniel T. II and I.T., from his care and denied him reunification services and visitation. His sole contention is that the juvenile court lacked the power to make these orders because no evidence in the record indicates the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department) made sufficient inquiry about the children’s possible Indian child status under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Respondent concedes that an insufficient ICWA inquiry was made but contends we can grant no effective relief at this stage because DCFS and the juvenile court have ongoing obligations under ICWA, and post-appeal court orders, of which we have taken judicial notice, indicate the juvenile court has now ordered DCFS to conduct further inquiries. We agree, and therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND We will limit the presentation of facts to those pertinent to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding, the sole disputed topic on appeal. On April 14, 2020, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions 1 Code section 300 petition on behalf of Daniel T. II and I.T. based