Filed 8/17/26 In re A.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 A.S., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT D087600
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJP001423)
v.
P.J.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County,
Michael Domenzain, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded.
LaneLaw and Cindy K. Lane, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kelly Ranasinghe, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
P.J. (Mother) filed a notice of appeal after her parental rights were
terminated. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; all undesignated statutory
references are to this code.) In her opening brief, she argued the Imperial
County Department of Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with
its duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. ch. 21,
§ 1901 et seq.). The Department agrees. The parties filed a joint stipulation
for conditional reversal and limited remand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128,
subd. (a)(8).) While we are not persuaded that Code of Civil Procedure
section 128, subdivision (a)(8) is satisfied, we construe the stipulation as the
Department’s concession on the issue presented by Mother. We have
reviewed the record and agree a concession is appropriate. Accordingly, we
conditionally reverse the order and remand the matter to complete the ICWA
inquiry.
BACKGROUND
A. General Background
In July 2024, the Department filed a petition after receiving a referral
alleging general neglect of A.S. The referral stated Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine following her arrest on charges of harboring
undocumented individuals at the family home. At the house, authorities also
found drug paraphernalia and a known drug dealer. The Department’s
petition alleged A.S. came within section 300, subdivision (b), based on
Mother’s criminal activity, ongoing drug use, and unresolved substance abuse
history. It also alleged A.S.’s father tested positive for fentanyl and
marijuana.1
1 An interview with Mother eliminated a potential second alleged father
from this case. Mother explained DNA testing showed R.O. was A.S.’s
2
The court found the allegations true at the contested jurisdiction
hearing in October 2024. The court bypassed reunification services for
Mother and, although it ordered services for father, it terminated them in
May 2025 after he declined services and made no progress on his case plan.
At the January 2026 section 366.26 hearing, the court terminated parental
rights and ordered adoption as A.S.’s permanent plan.
B. ICWA
Mother, the father, the paternal grandmother (grandmother), and a
paternal aunt initially denied Native American ancestry. Both parents
confirmed their denials on ICWA-020 forms.
In August 2024, the grandmother disclosed that A.S.’s paternal great-
grandmother had claimed to be a Native American born in Texas, though she
did not know the tribe and did not believe any family member was registered
with a tribe or had lived on a reservation. At the August 2024 hearing, a
paternal aunt told the court that the paternal grandfather might have tribal
ties. The Department contacted tribes but omitted the paternal great-
grandmother’s name and listed the paternal grandfather by an incomplete
name.
Three paternal aunts attended the October 2024 contested jurisdiction
hearing. When asked by the court, one aunt again reported that the paternal
great-grandmother was Native American, though she did not know from
which tribe. The court did not make a separate inquiry of the other aunts,
found insufficient information to identify the paternal great-grandmother’s
tribe, and made no ICWA findings.
biological parent. In any event, on June 3, 2024, the court terminated the
second alleged father’s parental rights. He is not a party to this appeal.
3
The Department’s reports repeatedly noted ICWA might apply but
reflected no new inquiry beyond periodically re-asking Mother, the father,
and the grandmother about tribal connections; each time they denied Native
American ancestry or provided no new information. Two uncles attended
hearings in 2025 but were not asked about Native American heritage. It was
not until the Department’s section 366.26 report filed in August 2025 that it
concluded, without explanation, that ICWA did not apply.
At a December 2025 hearing, the grandmother stated that paternal
great-grandmother was Native American from Texas. A paternal cousin
appeared but was not asked about ancestry. The Department acknowledged
it had not followed up on prior Native American heritage information, and
the court continued the hearing for further inquiry.
The Department’s further investigation consisted of additional
conversations with the grandmother that yielded no new information.
However, the Department found an online obituary for the paternal great-
grandmother but it lacked any mention of Native American ancestry. The
Department also made a single phone call to an out-of-service number the
grandmother had for the paternal grandfather.2 The Department concluded
it had no reason to believe A.S. had Native American ancestry.
As stated earlier, at the January 2026 hearing, the court terminated
parental rights. But, the court did not make the affirmative ICWA finding
section 224.2, subdivision (i)(2) requires.
After Mother filed her opening appellate brief, the parties filed a joint
motion to conditionally reverse the order and remand the matter to the
2 Grandmother stated she separated from paternal grandfather in
August 1993 and had not been in touch with him since. She gave an
approximate location in Calexico of where she believed paternal grandfather
might live.
4
juvenile court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128. The motion
explained the parties agreed the Department did not conduct a proper
inquiry under ICWA and its California counterpart, the California Indian
Child Welfare Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, et seq.).
DISCUSSION
We may not reverse a judgment upon stipulation of the parties unless
we find: (1) “There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of
nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal”; and
(2) “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)(A), (B).) In this
case, these requirements are not satisfied in at least one aspect.
Here, there is a reasonable probability the interest of a nonparty or the
public will be adversely affected by the conditional reversal. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 128, subd. (a)(8)(A).) Grandmother, who is not a party to this appeal, is
A.S.’s prospective adoptive parent. A stipulated reversal would negatively
impact her rights since it would delay A.S.’s adoption by her. “[T]he typical
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 appeal involves a minor already
living with the adoptive parents. Under those circumstances, there could be
an adverse effect on the adoptive parents’ rights if there were a stipulated
reversal of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental
termination rights order.” (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380.)
We find in this case delaying grandmother’s adoption of A.S. would violate
Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subd. (a)(8)(A) and, therefore, the
parties’ agreement does not meet the statutory requirements necessary for us
to reverse a judgment by stipulation.
5
However, we read the stipulation as the Department’s concession to
Mother’s argument. Considering the briefing in that posture, we reviewed
the record in this matter and agree with the Department’s position regarding
the inadequacy of its ICWA investigation.
DISPOSITION
The order entered by the juvenile court on January 28, 2026, made
pursuant to a hearing under section 366.26, is conditionally reversed. The
matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of conducting
the further inquiry required by ICWA and the California Indian Child
Welfare Act. After proper inquiry has been completed and any notice
requirements are met, if any tribes claim A.S. is a Native American child, the
court shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and the parallel California
statute. If not, the court shall reinstate the order terminating parental
rights. Remittitur shall issue immediately.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, J.
6