appeal concerns to a crucial aspect of indian tribal sovereignty namely who gets to decide whether an indian child will be taken from her family taken from her home and placed permanently outside of of their sovereignty as a result it can't be changed by the state it can't be changed by a waiver of a tribal member if we wait only by an act of congress so here in what needs to be done to protect the future and the well being of the trial this function as the pitcher court noted and as the congress and acting equip the indian child welfare act noted goes to the core of what it means to be a sovereign to determine the future of the next generation that was the basis for thirty three and that is why congress we are firm that principle in passing the interests of the child and the interests of the tribe are congregant moreover under recognized can ensue statutory construction well recognized by this court if there is any ambiguity whatsoever in an act of congress this court must resolve that ambiguity in favor of tribal sovereignty now in the case of the indian child welfare act that's not simply a canon of construction it's a canon which was made clear to congress at the time it was  ecting it and it was a canon which was incorporated into the native drawing regulations forty four third grades six seven five eight six so now the district court below correctly recognized that there are only twenty five to thirty five percent of indian children were being removed from their homes and placed in foster care or institutions or adoptive placement and it was particularly bad here in california and in other public law to a few states reservation domiciled indian child let me jump if i can further down the page of judge patel also decision where she says it seems much more likely that congress assumed public law to eighty did apply to a broad range of child child custody proceedings and wanted to offer tribes who had the necessary structures the opportunity for self governance plaintiff does not contend that an indian colony tribal court or other queens by judicial body  and that is correct what does that mean and well yes because it seems that if somebody had presented judge patel with the existence of an appropriate agency to handle this she would have said that agency gets the handling and nobody you said it needs to needs to exist does exist here it is and here's the or the representatives from that cork there are interveners or whatever it is we're joining them in the case and then it goes off in your direction what am i missing here i would be happy to have the case issue resolutions on this specific case regarding the appropriate place to another child prior to the state court's decision even though there is back asked me that is not relevant legal inquiry under equipped the only relevant legal inquiry is whether or not this is a child who was domiciled on the reservation undisputed and whether or not she was a member of that tribe undisputed relatively limited number of voluntary adoptions which would fall within public law to eighty and would be subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the state and the response is that this is not a small number at all significant number of cases and in fact if you go through the legislative history of the equity one of the principal concerns of progress was not just with involuntary removals they're also concerned about voluntary removals so there are healthy number of these cases however voluntary removals pose a less of a threat to indian sovereignty because what you're talking about is a private contract you're talking about a private adoption between two consenting parents which is bla by by a body on the other hand when you're talking about an involuntary removal you are making determinations about the state of the door by the governing body of the government as to what is what our values in terms of what is the wellbeing of this child what is appropriate rearing what is appropriate parenting skills who would be in the best position to protect the health and wellbeing of this child and one last point been away from her trial we want to assure the court of what will happen if the court rules are same or what will happen is that the district court will determine that the alternately determined to leave the child with the adoptive parents they like state courts like the people in this room love their children and care about their children probing i will make the that releases that eliminates that relationship so the child is now usually returned to whatever relationship she asked with a parent's right and practice to do something for and it would take the appropriate action to understand that the ruling your favor with the immediate legal result can terms of the relationship between the family and the child i believe that the district court would then be for two individuals to fight over their children as a result of the divorce or otherwise another thing for the state to come in and take the child away from them conceptually that's true but under that really well include what would be both voluntary and involuntary proceedings there is absolutely nothing in ecuador that suggests that the court that the superior court's jurisdiction is dependent upon what may be voluntary or involuntary that concept is absolutely absent from the jurisdictional provisions of it and for good reason because a voluntary proceeding can transform into an involuntary proceeding or vice one of which it must proceed with either return the child to the parent or return the child to the jurisdiction or transfer the child custody to the tribe or commence a proceeding in state court under the clauses that is public law too weighty suggests that congress never intended the civil laws in quotes to mean the entire array of state non criminal laws but rather that congress intended civil laws to mean those laws which well congress an eck with certainly didn't perceive any distinction between voluntary and involuntary proceedings but what's notable about the private decision is that it also references as appropriate subject matter for a superior her state court action d places that in whatever administrative agency the state many have for dealing with such cases right well that determination is not made by a state regulatory agency but is made by the state court  i don't i don't know you are here are you might want to address that question to counsel for the for the intervenor but one other thing that we haven't heard you like it's kind of surprised me because we always hear it in indian cases is the indian is the can i think the court is correct that as soon as the superior court judgment is voided everything that is it is done is voided the relationship between the child and the adoptive parent will terminate the terminations of print all rights would terminate and presumably the that we don't sit at the family law court to try to sort that out if you agree with that yes i think that is it would be one way or the other just for a child of twelve to you know it would certainly be disruptive  erred in refusing to apply the doctrine we think it's directly applicable here this action is clearly an effort to undo what happened before the superior court the relief requested with respect to all four counts of the complaint is t void the superior court's judgment return the child to the tried and or the mother or the mother clearly there's there is no purpose to this action but the absolutely true and only true but that doesn't mean that rocker found mine hundred nine intervened in two thousand and at that point the tribe we like the child to be placed with a relative the tribe was represented by the premier indian law firm in california and at that time the tribe in its tribal resolution that the reason for asking the court to place the child with a relative was the united states supreme court in hollyfield i was looking at a case with a tribe came in two months after the child was adopted that was well within the time period for appealing in state court that adoption court we had exclusive jurisdiction during the proceedings of that case there with jail and ongoing state court proceeding considered promoted and that's the tribe and it's defined that there's no more so so that the tribes interests are protected the tribes interests in determining what the tribes interest in preserving their try and their future rights were terminated the mother lost her constitutional rights at the time of the adoption jane and her adoptive family and her adoptive parents cites numerous united states supreme court cases in california that recognize that a child has a right to permanen following protect the interests of jane and her adoptive family not destroying that family it will check the interest temporarily situated indian children in california and other public she's been in her adoptive home for five years she has an expectation of permanency that expectation was made permanent three years diction even conquer her and now the mother is claiming that the tribe should have decided in the first place it's too late there's no there's no action in tribal court but if you started wanting tribal court then you would have to actually correct you know the state action and then if the tribe decided to come here and not in the state inferred from congress's understanding of the law at the time the act was enacted the intention of congress can be gleaned at least in part by reference to prior law as congress is presumed to be knowledgeable about existing law curtain and to any new legislation that in acts but congress can be presume to know that statutes passed for the benefit of indian tribes will be liberally construed in favor of such crimes with that said i think the train general makes  interesting point and that in his interpretation section one nine hundred fourteen it's not really jurisdiction statute like you find in atheists which is district court's jurisdiction but it's really a standing statute that tells you the kind of appropriate way to do that is through the federal courts otherwise you do have these situations in which ultimately the federal courts the arbiter you have one case pending in say cork one case pending and tribal court simultaneously and indian tribes won't take responsibility for that it was that type of mission the congress rejected and then acting