Filed 7/21/16 In re I.G. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re I.G., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E065231
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1400876)
v. OPINION
B.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jean P. Leonard, Judge.
Reversed with directions.
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and Carol A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
B.A. (mother), the mother of I.G., appealed from a judgment terminating her
parental rights as to I.G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother filed an opening brief
contending that the juvenile court failed to adequately comply with the inquiry and notice
requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 5.480 et seq.) On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint application
and stipulation for reversal of judgment and remand. After our own careful review of the
entire record, we conclude that the juvenile court did fail to adequately comply with the
inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA, and we reverse with the requested directions.
FACTS
The child was detained on November 9, 2014. On that same date, father told
Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) that he may have
Cherokee and Blackfoot ancestry. In father’s ICWA-020 form, father again identified
possible Cherokee and Blackfoot ancestry. In November 2014, the juvenile court
directed DPSS to provide notice under ICWA. DPSS filed a Notice of the Child Custody
Proceeding for Indian Child on December 10, 2014. The notice did not include complete
information for father, his parents or his grandparents.
DPSS was in contact with paternal grandfather regarding assessment for
placement. Paternal grandfather appeared several times in juvenile court. Minor was
placed with paternal grandfather on July 2, 2015. Paternal grandfather reported he was in
contact with seven members of the paternal side of the family. Despite the contact with
paternal grandfather, DPSS did not inquire about the paternal family’s Native American
ancestry, and no new ICWA notice was sent to tribes.
2
On May 13, 2015, the court found that ICWA did not apply.
The court terminated mother and father’s parental rights at the Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing held January 12, 2016.
STIPULATION
A stipulated reversal under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision
(a)(8) is permissible in a dependency case when the parties agree that reversible error
occurred, and the stipulated reversal will expedite the final resolution of the case on the
merits. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380-382.) In the stipulation, the
parties agree that insufficient inquiry and notice was provided under the provisions of
ICWA and that reversal of the judgment is appropriate with directions to the juvenile
court to make a proper ICWA inquiry. Notice under ICWA must contain sufficient
information to determine the child’s direct ancestors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd.
(a)(5); In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703.) Reversal is therefore
appropriate given the Department’s and juvenile court’s failure to provide adequate
ICWA notice. (See e.g., In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.) Although only
mother appealed, the parental rights termination order must be reversed as to both mother
and father. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 208.)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is reversed as to both parents.
The juvenile court is directed to order the Department to comply with its inquiry
duties under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1224.3, subdivisions (a) and (c) and to
provide adequate notice which contains information concerning father’s relatives
3
pursuant to the provisions of ICWA. If after proper notice and inquiry, a tribe determines
that I.G. is an Indian child as defined by ICWA, the juvenile court is directed to conduct a
new Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing in conformity with the
provisions of ICWA. If there is no response or the tribes determine that I.G. is not an
Indian child, the juvenile court is directed to reinstate all previous findings and terminate
parental rights.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the clerk of this court is directed to issue the
remittitur immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
Presiding Justice
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
McKINSTER
J.
4
In re I.G. CA4/2
Combined Opinion