In re A.B. CA2/5

Filed 2/29/24 In re A.B. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.B. et al., Persons Coming B331383 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 21CCJP01452B-C)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay, III, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions. Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dan Szrom, Children’s Law Center 1, for minors. ——————————

T.B. (father) appeals from the August 17, 2023 order terminating his parental rights to two of his children born in July 2018 (minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We conditionally reverse and remand. Father contends that the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not comply with their 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.). Father, the Department, and minor have stipulated to a limited reversal and a remand to the juvenile court to permit proper 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, 379–382. The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with ICWA and related California provisions. (In re K.R. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 701, 706–709; see also In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Because this case would be subject to conditional reversal to permit compliance with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and rules