In re I.D. CA2/5

I. INTRODUCTION

In a prior appeal in this matter (In re I.D. (May 17, 2022, B311124))1, C.D. and D.D., mother and father of now 11 year old I.D. (the child), contended the juvenile court erred when it terminated their visitation with the child; mother also contended the court erred when it denied her Welfare and Institutions Code section 3882 petition that sought to change the court’s order terminating her family reunification services. We affirmed the court’s orders. Following further proceedings on remand, the court terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights to the child pursuant to section 366.26. Mother and father appeal, contending the court erred in denying them visitation and the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to satisfy their inquiry

On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the prior opinion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.

2 duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.).3 We conditionally affirm and…