In re D.W. CA2/5

Filed 12/21/23 In re D.W. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B328675

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 21LJJP00070A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Dav. W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tara Newman, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Sally Son, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this appeal from a parental rights termination order, Dav. W. (Father) asserts the dependency court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) did not comply with their obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law. The Department confesses error and does not oppose conditional affirmance or reversal of the order to allow it to “conduct a complete inquiry and, if required by . . . ICWA, [to] proceed in accordance with . . . ICWA’s notice mandates.” On the facts here, which we will review briefly, we hold a remand for further ICWA- related process is required.

I. BACKGROUND Father and A.S. (Mother) are the parents of D.W. (Minor). In 2021, the Department filed a dependency petition alleging Minor and his siblings (who are not parties to this appeal) were dependent children as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 During the ensuing dependency proceedings, Mother informed the Department and the juvenile court that she had no Indian ancestry as far as she knew. Mother also represented, however, that she had been the subject of dependency proceedings as a child herself and “was in foster care” for a period of time that the appellate record does not reveal. Father, by contrast, represented (although not in entirely consistent fashion throughout the proceedings) that he did have Indian ancestry. On a Parental Notification of Indian Status