In re S.E. CA2/5

Filed 8/11/23 In re S.E. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.E., a Person Coming B326244 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01726A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with instructions.

Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Children’s Law Center 1, Ann-Marissa Cook and Janelle Batta for Minor.

_________________________

A.E. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to S.E. (the child) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. According to father, the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to satisfy their respective obligations under 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.) regarding inquiry into the child’s possible Indian ancestry. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, father, the child, and the Department filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand with directions to the Department and the court to conduct a proper initial inquiry and, if necessary, further inquiry and notice pursuant to ICWA and related California statutes. Because, as explained below, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) have been met, we accept the stipulation. This case involves reversible error as the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the requirements of ICWA and related California statutes. (See In re H.V. (2022) 75