In re A.S. CA2/4
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
In January 2023, A.S. (born February 2017) and her sister E.S. (born August 2021) were declared juvenile dependents and removed from parental custody based on sustained allegations of sexual and substance abuse. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b); In re A.S. et al. (June 7, 2024, B328799) [nonpub. opn.] (In re A.S.).)1 At a six-month status review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), the juvenile court found compliance with reunification services by parents, Samantha S. (mother) and Justin S. (father), was not substantial. On appeal from the status review hearing, father raises one contention: He avers the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and court failed to comply with the inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1900, et seq.) and related California law, the California Indian Child Welfare Act (Cal-ICWA; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). DCFS has not filed an appellate brief challenging the merits of this contention. Instead, it has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, based entirely on a motion to take additional evidence and judicial notice of post-judgment