Case Title: In re A.J.

Citation: 169 Vt. 577, 733 A.2d 36

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re A.J.  (98-537); 169 Vt. 577; 733 A.2d 36

[Opinion filed 1-Apr-1999]
[Motion for Reargument denied 27-Apr-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-537

                              MARCH TERM, 1999

                                      

In re A.J.	                      }	     APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }	     Franklin Family Court
                                      }	
                                      }
                                      }	     DOCKET NO. 102-05-96 Frjv	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Mother appeals from a family court judgment terminating her residual
  parental rights.  She  contends (1) that the court erred in failing to
  notify the Micmac and Abenaki tribes that an Indian  child was involved in
  the proceeding pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 
  1901-1963 (ICWA); and (2) that the exclusion of the Micmac and Abenaki
  tribes from the ICWA  violates their right to equal protection of the law. 
  We affirm.
 
       The facts underlying this TPR proceeding are not at issue and need not
  be recounted in  detail.  Several weeks prior to the TPR hearing, mother
  sent a letter to the court claiming that she  and the minor's father were
  of Native American descent, and requesting that the matter be  transferred
  to a Native American court pursuant to the ICWA.  At the hearing, mother's
  counsel  represented that mother claimed descent from both the Abenaki and
  Micmac Indian tribes.  The  court ruled that the ICWA did not apply to
  either tribe, and that notification of the tribes was  therefore not
  required.  Following the hearing, the court entered judgment terminating
  mother's  residual parental rights. This appeal followed.

       The ICWA requires notification of the parent, the child's tribe, or,
  if the identity or location  of the tribe cannot be determined, the Bureau
  of Indian Affairs (BIA), "where the court knows  or has reason to know that
  an Indian child is involved."  25 U.S.C. § 1912(a). The act defines an 
  Indian child as a minor who is either a member of an Indian tribe or
  eligible for membership in  an Indian tribe.  See id. § 1903(4).  An Indian
  tribe is defined as any Indian tribe or group of  Indians recognized as
  eligible for services provided by the BIA.  See id. § 1903(8).

       It is undisputed that neither the Abenaki nor the Micmac Indian tribes
  has been recognized  as eligible for services by the BIA.  See In re
  M.C.P., 153 Vt. 275, 288, 571 A.2d 627, 634  (1989); Abenaki Nation of
  Mississquoi v. Hughes,