In re J.W.

Filed 6/23/11 In re J.W. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B226482 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK51841)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.W., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Stephen Marpet, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed with directions.

Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel and Judith A. Luby, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
J.W. (father) appeals from orders entered in the dependency case filed on behalf of J.W. (minor). Father contends: (1) unspecified orders should be reversed on the grounds that the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not provide the notice required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); and (2) the juvenile court erred when it denied his petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] seeking six months of reunification services.
DISCUSSION
The Department concedes that N.J. (mother) indicated that she has Cherokee heritage. It also concedes that there is no evidence that it investigated mother’s heritage or provided notices to the Cherokee tribes or the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); 25 C.F.R. § 23.11(c)(12); In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 632–633.) As a result, the Department is unopposed to a limited remand pursuant to In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 384 (Brooke C.). On remand, the juvenile court shall order the Department to comply with the notice requirements of ICWA. If the minor is determined not to be an Indian child and ICWA does not apply, the prior defective notice becomes harmless error and any challenged order shall stand. (Brooke C., supra, at p. 385.) Alternatively, if the minor is determined to be an Indian child, father can petition the juvenile court to invalidate any orders which violated title 25 United States Code sections 1911, 1912, and 1913. (25 U.S.C. § 1914; Brooke C., supra, at p. 385.)
The denial of father’s section 388 petition is moot. His petition was denied on July 9, 2010. This appeal was taken on August 3, 2010. Subsequently, he filed another petition seeking six months of reunification services. On October 26, 2010, his petition was granted.[2] Due to this subsequent event, a reversal would not serve any purpose. (Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 164, 170.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed. The matter is remanded for the juvenile court to order the Department to comply with ICWA notice requirements. If the minor is determined to be an Indian child and ICWA applies, father is entitled to petition the juvenile court to invalidate any orders which violated title 25 United States Code sections 1911, 1912, and 1913.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.




______________________________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST


We concur:



_______________________________, Acting P. J.
DOI TODD



_______________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

---