In re M.T. CA2/5

Filed 7/10/23 In re M.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.T. et al., Persons Coming B325401 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 20LJJP00779A-B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Sarah Liebowitz, Children’s Law Center 3, for Minors. ________________________

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her two children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court failed to satisfy its inquiry obligations and erred when it determined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law as to the children’s possible Indian heritage. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother, DCFS, and the children filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to order DCFS to inquire of available maternal extended family members in compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation. This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Here, DCFS only inquired with the parents and the paternal grandmother regarding Native American ancestry. DCFS did not ask the extended family members about heritage. After reviewing the entire record, we find that the statutory requirements set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for a stipulated reversal have been satisfied here. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379–382.) DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s November 10, 2022 orders terminating parental rights to the children are conditionally reversed, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for proceedings required