In re J.A. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County
- Trial judge
- Marian F. Gaston
- Outcome
- reversed — Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights, finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply because there was no reason to know the child was an Indian child. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded the case based on a joint stipulation that the agency failed to conduct adequate ICWA inquiry after learning of a potential Native American heritage claim.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26“The March 18, 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 Agency to make a proper inquiry into possible Indian ancestry in J.A.’s paternal lineage to ensure compliance with the ICWA and related state statutes and rules.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court accepted the parties' joint stipulation that the agency's ICWA investigation was inadequate, specifically failing to follow up on the paternal grandmother's claim of Cherokee heritage. The court determined that this failure constituted reversible error under California rules and statutes, necessitating a remand for proper inquiry rather than affirming the termination based on the initial, insufficient findings. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376 — Authority supporting the use of stipulated reversal to advance public interests when a case would otherwise be reversed for procedural error.
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 identifies a clear procedural failure in the agency's ICWA inquiry. The court relies on the parties' stipulation and established case law to justify the remand, ensuring that the child's potential rights under ICWA are protected without unnecessary delay.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to J.A. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after confirming its earlier finding that ICWA did not apply, despite the paternal grandmother's recently disclosed claim of Cherokee heritage. On appeal, the parties jointly stipulated that the Agency's ICWA inquiry was 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 with directions for a proper inquiry into J.A.'s paternal lineage.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's March 2021 finding, confirming its February 2020 finding, that ICWA did not apply because there was no reason to believe J.A. may be an Indian child“The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, that the Agency failed to comply with the ICWA’s inquiry requirement and related California provisions.” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court Once the Agency learned the paternal grandmother claimed Cherokee heritage, the state-law inquiry duty (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4)) required further inquiry of extended family, and the record showed none beyond asking Father, who himself equivocated ('little to none'). The Agency's bare representation to the court that it had investigated further, unsupported by any record of what was done, could not sustain the finding, so the parties' concession of error and the court's acceptance of it are well founded. The court did not articulate a standard of review because it proceeded on stipulation. |
Order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (merits apart from ICWA)“If the court finds that J.A. is not an Indian child, the order terminating parental rights shall be reinstated. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Mother raised only the ICWA issue, so the court left the termination order otherwise undisturbed and provided for its reinstatement if J.A. is found not to be an Indian child; this conditional-reversal disposition is the standard remedy for ICWA inquiry error and is consistent with the stipulated remand. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376 — A stipulated reversal in a dependency case satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) where the judgment would be reversed in any event, because the remand serves the interests of the child and the public rather than eroding public trust.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) and In re Rashad H. to accept a stipulated conditional reversal, and the record facts it recites (an unexplored claim of Cherokee heritage from the paternal grandmother) plainly support the concession that the inquiry was inadequate. It does not cite the governing inquiry statute (§ 224.2) specifically or discuss the applicable standard of review, but given the stipulation those gaps do not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 8/27/21 In re J.A. 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 J.A., a Person Coming Under D078876 the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH (San Diego County AND HUMAN SERVICES Super. Ct. No. J519822B) AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.A., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Marisa L. Dersey Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A.A. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her child, J.A., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. A.A. contends the juvenile court erroneously found the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Mother and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency, collectively the parties) have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under the ICWA was inadequate. The parties have filed a joint stipulation seeking a limited reversal and remand with directions to the Agency 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 in October 2019 indicating that she had no Indian ancestry. Father then submitted an ICWA-020 form in November 2019 indicating that he, too, did not have Indian ancestry. On February 6, 2020, the juvenile court held that reasonable inquiry had been made to determine whether J.A. is an Indian Child and found that it had reason to know that J.A. is not an Indian child. On or around February 2021, the Agency learned that the paternal grandmother was claiming Native American heritage with the Cherokee Nation. When Father was asked about this, he denied such heritage and stated that, if there was any Indian ancestry, it would be “little to none.” There is no indication in the record that the Agency conducted any further inquiry.
2 At the contested hearing in March 2021, the Agency informed the juvenile court about the paternal grandmother’s claim of Indian heritage and stated that it “has since conducted further investigation and has found that there is no further information that would lead the court to believe ICWA would apply.” Based thereon, the juvenile court confirmed its previous finding that the ICWA does not apply “as there is no reason to believe that [J.A.] may be an Indian child.” 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 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 Agency failed to comply with the ICWA’s inquiry requirement and related California provisions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1 et seq.) 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 March 18, 2021 order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is conditionally reversed and the matter 3 is remanded with directions for the juvenile court to order the Agency to make a proper inquiry into possible Indian ancestry in J.A.’s paternal lineage to ensure compliance with the ICWA and related state statutes and rules. If, after further inquiry, the Agency obtains information showing a reason to know that J.A. is an Indian child, the juvenile court must provide notice in accordance with ICWA. If the juvenile court finds that J.A. is an Indian child, it shall proceed in conformity with the ICWA. If the court finds that J.A. is not an Indian child, the order terminating parental rights shall be reinstated. In all other respects, the order is affirmed. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
GUERRERO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Rashad H. B133778 · 2000-03-02