In re D.C. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078879 · 2021-08-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from orders
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJP03693;JJP03694;JJP03695;JJP0000634;JJP0000635
Trial judge: William D. Lehman
Outcome: reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Area: dependency
Panel: O'Rourke (author), William S. Dato, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:03Z · confidence high

The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights to five children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order and remanded the case with directions to conduct a proper inquiry into the children's possible Indian ancestry to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 “The April 21, 2021 order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded with directions for the juvenile court to order the Department to make a proper inquiry into possible Indian ancestry in the children’s maternal lineage to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1 et seq.).”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court found reversible error because the Department failed to comply with ICWA notice requirements, specifically by providing insufficient biographical information about the maternal grandfather in the ICWA-030 notices. The court relied on the parties' stipulation that the investigation was inadequate and cited In re Francisco W. to establish that notice must include detailed information about grandparents. Because the error would have required reversal anyway, the court accepted the stipulated remand to correct the ICWA compliance issue rather than vacating the judgment entirely.

Authorities

relied: In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695 — Notice to the tribe must include available information about the maternal and paternal grandparents and great-grandparents, including maiden, married and former names or aliases; birthdates; place of birth and death; current and former addresses; tribal enrollment numbers; and other identifying data.
relied: In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376 — A stipulated remand advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) when the case would be subject to reversal absent the stipulation.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the standard for stipulated reversal under Code of Civil Procedure section 128 and accurately cites In re Francisco W. for the specific requirements of ICWA notice regarding extended family members. The court properly identifies the deficiency in the Department's notice (lack of biographical data for the maternal grandfather) and uses the stipulation to facilitate a targeted remand for compliance rather than a full retrial.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The juvenile court denied Mother's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and terminated her parental rights to five children under section 366.26 after ICWA-030 notices to Cherokee tribal entities that identified the maternal grandfather by name but omitted other biographical information about extended maternal relatives. On appeal, all parties stipulated that the Department's ICWA inquiry and notice were inadequate, and the Court of Appeal accepted the stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), conditionally reversed the termination order, and remanded for proper ICWA inquiry and notice, with the order to be reinstated if the children are found not to be Indian children.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Implied finding that the Department's ICWA inquiry and notice were adequate, underlying the April 21, 2021 order terminating parental rights “The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, that the Department failed to comply with the ICWA and related California provisions.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court Mother identified Cherokee ancestry through her maternal grandfather, yet the ICWA-030 notices contained only his name and no other biographical data for extended maternal relatives. In re Francisco W. requires notices to include available information about grandparents and great-grandparents (names, birthdates, places of birth and death, addresses, enrollment numbers). The parties' stipulation that inquiry was inadequate, combined with the court's independent concurrence, supports the conditional reversal, and the Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) findings are properly made because reversal would be required even absent stipulation.
Denial of Mother's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition “In all other respects, the April 21, 2021 order and findings therein are affirmed.”	unclear	not reached	unsure Although Mother's notice of appeal encompassed the section 388 denial, the parties' joint stipulation limited the appeal to the ICWA issue and the opinion does not analyze the section 388 ruling; it simply affirms the order in all other respects. Without any discussion or record facts in the opinion, there is no basis to evaluate the merits of that ruling.

Authorities

relied: In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695 — ICWA notice to a tribe must include available information about the maternal and paternal grandparents and great-grandparents, including names, aliases, birthdates, places of birth and death, addresses, tribal enrollment numbers, and other identifying data.
relied: In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376 — A stipulated reversal in a dependency appeal is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) where the judgment would be subject to reversal in any event, so the stipulation advances rather than erodes the public interest and does not reduce settlement incentives.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) and In re Rashad H. to accept a stipulated conditional reversal, and its independent concurrence that the ICWA notices were deficient is supported by In re Francisco W. and the undisputed fact that the notices lacked biographical information beyond the maternal grandfather's name. The limited conditional reversal with reinstatement if the children are not Indian children is the standard and appropriate remedy for ICWA notice error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/17/21 In re D.C. CA4/1

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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re D.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078879 IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JJP03693; JJP03694; JJP03695; JJP0000634; Plaintiff and Respondent, JJP0000635)

v. A.C., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Elizabeth A. Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel and Katherin Turner, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A.C. (Mother) appeals from orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating parental rights to her five minor children (the children), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Counsel for Mother, the children, and the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department, collectively the parties) have conferred and agree that the Department’s investigation and noticing of tribal entities under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) was inadequate. The parties have filed a joint application and stipulation seeking a limited reversal and remand with directions to the Department and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the ICWA. We accept the stipulation and conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights. DISCUSSION Mother submitted an ICWA-020 form at the detention hearing in January 2017 indicating that one or more of her family members may be a member of the Cherokee tribe. At the hearing, Mother stated that her maternal grandfather had Cherokee ancestry. The ICWA-030 notices for the children served on the tribal entities identified the name of the maternal grandfather but contained no other biographical information for the extended maternal family members. Before reversing or vacating a judgment based upon a stipulation of the parties, an appellate court must find “both of the following: [¶] (A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. [¶] (B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated 2 reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, that the Department failed to comply with the ICWA and related California provisions. (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [“Notice to the tribe must include available information about the maternal and paternal grandparents and great-grandparents, including maiden, married and former names or aliases; birthdates; place of birth and death; current and former addresses; tribal enrollment numbers; and other identifying data”].) Because this case would be subject to reversal to permit compliance with the ICWA and corresponding California statutes and rules absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). (See In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382.) DISPOSITION The April 21, 2021 order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded with directions for the juvenile court to order the Department to make a proper inquiry into possible Indian ancestry in the children’s maternal lineage to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1 et seq.). If, after further inquiry, the Department obtains information showing a reason to know that the children are Indian children, the court must provide notice in accordance with ICWA. If the court finds that the children are Indian children, the court shall proceed in conformity with the ICWA. If the court finds that the children are not Indian children, the order terminating parental rights shall be reinstated. In all other respects, the 3 April 21, 2021 order and findings therein are affirmed. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

In Re Francisco W. D047094 · 2006-05-17
In Re Rashad H. B133778 · 2000-03-02