In re Gage V.
Filed 9/12/07 In re Gage V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 GAGE V. et al, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B198605 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK60218) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOPHIA A. and MARK V., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joan Carney, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Reversed with directions.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sophia A..
Andre F. F. Toscano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mark V.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jennifer Waxler, Childrens Law Center, for Minors.
I. INTRODUCTION
Mark V. and Sophia A., the parents, appeal from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. They contend the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and immediate remittitur issuance. We accept the parties stipulation.
II. BACKGROUND
The parties agree there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act in that there was insufficient evidence compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. We concur in their assessment in this regard. Further, the parties agree the parental rights termination order must be reversed and remanded to permit proof of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal is controlled by our prior decision in the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error, the failure to present substantial evidence of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Because the parental rights termination order would be reversed under any circumstances, a stipulated reversal advances those interests identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for the reasons we explained in the case of In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pages 379-382. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal .App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.) If proper notice is provided and no tribe asserts that the child is of Indian descent, the parental rights termination order is to be reinstated.
III. DISPOSITION
The Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order is reversed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements. Pursuant to the parties stipulation, this decision is final. The remittitur is to issue forthwith. All other orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
