In re A.D. CA2/5

Filed 9/20/23 In re A.D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.D., a Person Coming Under B326542 the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 18CCJP04559B) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tara Newman, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________

Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to daughter (born 2019). Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its inquiry duties under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b)—the California statute implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Mother further contends the juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with ICWA. DCFS has submitted a concession letter in lieu of a respondent’s brief, acknowledging mother’s contentions have merit. We conditionally affirm the termination of parental rights and remand to allow DCFS to remedy the ICWA inquiry error, and for the juvenile court to determine anew whether ICWA applies. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 21, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), alleging mother’s substance abuse and mental and emotional problems rendered her incapable of providing regular care to daughter, who was 18 months old at the time. The petition also alleged mother’s older child was a prior dependent of the juvenile court due to the same history of substance abuse alleged in daughter’s case.1 The

1 The court terminated its jurisdiction over mother’s older child in 2019, and granted the child’s father sole physical and legal custody with monitored visitation to mother.