In re H.P. CA2/5

Filed 5/16/23 In re H.P. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.P., a Person Coming Under B323542 the Juvenile Court Law. ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 19CCJP05986A) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nancy Sarinana for the Minor.

__________________________________

B.P. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights over H.P. (Minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends the juvenile court erred when it found the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law. Father, DCFS, and Minor have stipulated to a conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to permit compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation. Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal and remand in the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376. The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with federal ICWA regulations and related California law. Specifically, the record indicates the juvenile court did not ask Father at his first court appearance whether he had reason to know Minor was an Indian child. (25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a) [state courts must ask “each participant” in child custody proceedings whether they know or have reason to know that the child is an Indian child]; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (c) [“At the first appearance in court of each party, the court shall ask each participant present in the hearing