In re C.C. CA2/5

Filed 5/14/24 In re C.C. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.C., a Person Coming B332870 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP00486)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Judge, Pro Tempore. Conditionally reversed and remanded.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Children’s Law Center 3, Sarah Liebowitz, for Minor C.C. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

D.E. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her child C.C.1 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Mother contends the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to satisfy their initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for mother, 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. This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions.