2009 American Indian Law Deskbook Supplement

Chapter 13 Indian Child Welfare Act

58 P.572, n.12. Add the following to line 6 of the footnote after “see”: In re A.A., 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (Ct. App. 2008) (discussing various issues with reference to both ICWA and complementary state Indian child-related custody proceeding provisions, including adequate efforts to provide remedial services, the “Indian child exception” established under California statute, and child placement); P.573, n.14. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see”: In re C.C.M., 202 P.3d 971, 976–77 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (custody proceeding brought by Indian custodian and his spouse constituted a foster care proceeding since purpose was “to divest [the father] of his legal right to custody”); In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16, 18–19 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (citing to, and agreeing with, decisions from other jurisdictions that deem step-parent adoptions “where a child will remain with one biological parent after the adoption” subject to ICWA); P.574, n.18. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “See”: In re Welfare of MG, 201 P.3d 354, 358 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (case that commenced as an involuntary dependency proceeding, and hence a foster care placement proceeding under ICWA, was not transformed into a voluntary proceeding by mother’s subsequent consent to a dependency order; “the intent of 25 U.S.C. § 1913 is to encourage parents to make appropriate placement of their children when they are not confident of their own ability to parent[,]” but such “intent would not be furthered by applying it to involuntary placements where the parents are represented by counsel”); P.575, n.22. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “Compare”: In re C.C.M., 202 P.3d 971, 979, 980 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (since “[i]n an action for foster care placement such as that herein, ICWA expresses no preference Chapter 13 Indian Child Welfare Act 59 Indian Child Welfare Act for placement of an Indian child with a parent over an Indian custodian,” application of a state law-based “preference for parental custody over nonparental custody” gave effect to 25 U.S.C. § 1921 insofar as the preference “provides greater protection to the parent in this context than does ICWA”); P.577, n.27. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “E.g.,”: In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16, 22 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (reasoning in part that “[a]pplying the exception would result in each state court using its own value system to decide whether a child is ‘Indian enough’ for the ICWA to apply, which would limit the tribes’ efforts to regain members who were lost because of earlier governmental action”); P.577, n.28. Add the following the fourteenth-to-last line of the footnote before the period: ; cf. In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16, 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (declining to follow Bridget R. in connection with a constitutional challenge on various grounds to ICWA insofar as it applies to step-parent adoption proceedings, and observing in response to a substantive due process-based claim that “[n]either the United States Supreme Court nor the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized a child’s substantive due process right to a stable home”) P.579. Add the following to the end of the carryover paragraph: Indeed, the Kansas Supreme Court—the appellate court originating the exception , subsequently concluded that the doctrine is inconsistent with ICWA.33.1 33.1 In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543, 550 (Kan. 2009) (overruling In re Adoption of Baby Boy L., 643 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1982), and identifying various reasons for its determination including the influence of “our sister states’ and commentators’ widespread and well-reasoned criticism of the doctrine”). P.580, n.34. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see”: In re E.G., 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, 873 (Ct. App. 2009) (“[a]n alleged father may or may not have any biological connection to the child[,]” and thus “[u]ntil biological paternity is established, an alleged father’s claims of Indian heritage do not trigger any ICWA notice requirement”); People ex rel. L.O.L, 197 P.3d 291, 294 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court did not err in applying clearand -convincing-evidence standard in parental rights termination proceeding, not the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required under ICWA, in light...