Filed 9/8/26 In re N.P. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re N.P., et al. H053909
__________________________________ (Santa Clara County Superior Ct.
Nos. 24JD027835, 24JD027836)
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
CHILDREN’S SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT1
Appellant, B.P., mother of N.P. and J.P., appeals from dispositional orders issued
after a hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition. Respondent,
County of Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department), and
B.P. jointly move for a summary reversal of the orders. The parties agree that the trial
court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and request that we
remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of ICWA compliance. We
grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
1
Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J. and Danner, J.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2025, the juvenile court held a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 387 disposition hearing, where it removed the children, N.P. and J.P., from B.P.’s
care. The court found that the previous family maintenance plan had failed and ordered
reunification services. Additionally, the juvenile court found the Department’s ICWA
inquiry sufficient and concluded that ICWA does not apply. This timely appeal ensued.
After B.P. filed an opening brief, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, B.P. contends that the orders must be reversed and the matter
remanded for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA. B.P. argues that
the Department failed to contact all reasonably available relatives as well as the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), and any
implicated tribes pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (e).
B.P. asks this court to direct the juvenile court to order the Department to conduct further
inquiry and, if necessary, effectuate proper notice pursuant to ICWA. B.P. concludes in
the opening brief that if, after proper inquiry and notice, the trial court finds that ICWA
does not apply, the court’s dispositional order can be reinstated. (In re N.D. (2020)
46 Cal.App.5th 620, 624.) In the motion for stipulated reversal, the parties acknowledge
that the juvenile court erred when it found that ICWA did not apply because the
Department had not made sufficient efforts to contact all known relatives who may have
had information about possible Indian heritage, and it had not sought BIA or CDSS
assistance in identifying tribes in which the children may be a member. The parties agree
that this court is likely to reverse the trial court’s orders because of its failure to comply
with ICWA. To minimize delay, they request that we reverse based on their stipulation.
The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary reversal pursuant
to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that there
2
is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by
the reversal. Summary reversal of the judgment would place the parties in the same
position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion,
would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the need for
further briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court, and most
importantly would minimize delay in permanency for the children. (In re Rashad H.
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380, as modified (Mar. 2, 2000).) Both public policy and the
public interest are served by these outcomes.
This court further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting reversal are
reasonable. The parties agree that the trial court erred in finding ICWA did not apply, but
they also agree that if the matter is remanded for ICWA compliance, the prior orders can
be reinstated after ensuring such compliance and making the proper findings. These
grounds outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a
judgment and outweigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce
the incentive for pretrial settlement. Public trust in the courts is enhanced, not eroded,
when parties recognize and acknowledge errors and agree to resolve them with limited
delay. (See Union Bank of California. v. Braille Inst. of America (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th
1324, 1330-1331.)
III. DISPOSITION
The November 24, 2025 orders are reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the
parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of ensuring
compliance with ICWA. If the court determines that the requirements of ICWA have
been met and once again finds that ICWA does not apply, the court shall reinstate the
orders issued after the November 24, 2025 hearing. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
3
_______________________________
Greenwood, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
___________________________________________
Grover, J.
______________________________________
Danner, J.
H053909 - In re N.P. et al.; Santa Clara County DFCS v. B.P.
