In re D.L. CA4/2

I.

INTRODUCTION

L.M. (Mother) and M.L. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order

terminating parental rights as to their six-year-old son Dev.L. (Dev.), five-year-old son

Dem.L. (Dem.) and four-year-old daughter L.L. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) They

contend the juvenile court erred in finding the parental benefit exception under

section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply. (See In re Caden C. (2021)

Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.).) Father also argues that the juvenile court and the Riverside

County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with the duty of

inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)2 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

and related state law. Mother joins in Father’s argument.3 We find the juvenile court did

not err in finding the parental benefit exception did not apply. However, we

conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand this matter to the

juvenile court to comply with the duty of inquiry under subdivision (b) of section 224.2.

1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency,…