Title: MATTER OF M E M

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 81-101 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N T H E M A T T E R O F M.E.M. Y O U T H I N NEED O F CARE. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone. Honorable Diane G. B a r z , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Steve Bunch argued, Legal S e r v i c e s , Helena, Montana D. Michael Eakin argued, Legal S e r v i c e s , Hardin, Montana For Respondent : Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Robert P. Morin argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Olsen, Christensen and Gannett, B i l l i n g s , Montana Damon Gannett argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: September 1 4 , 1981 Decided: November 12, 1981 Filed: q - /9 T < z L - L + Y 4- Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a dependency and n e g l e c t a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a Sioux I n d i a n c h i l d . The case r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-608, 92 S t a t . 3069 ( c o d i f i e d a t 25 U.S.C.A. s e c t i o n s 1901-1963, West Supp. 1 9 7 9 ) . A l l p a r t i e s a g r e e to its a p p l i c a t i o n . The p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , also an e n r o l l e d t r i b a l member, were t e r m i n a t e d by o r d e r o f t h e District Court February 26, 1981. She a p p e a l s from t h a t j udgment . M . E . M . , age 5 , and h e r n a t u r a l mother a r e members of t h e S t a n d i n g Rock Sioux I n d i a n T r i b e . The mother h a s an I Q o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 53 and r e c e i v e s supplemental s e c u r i t y income (S. S. I. ) payments. The n a t u r a l f a t h e r is deceased. When t h i s a c t i o n was commenced t h e mother and M.E.M. were l i v i n g i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. The mother now r e s i d e s on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . M.E.M. remains i n t h e f o s t e r care of t h e S t a t e . P e t i t i o n f o r temporary i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y and p r o t e c - t i v e s e r v i c e s was f i l e d by t h e county a t t o r n e y August 22, 1979, i n t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, Yellowstone County. The S t a t e a l l e g e d M.E.M. was i n danger of being n e g l e c t e d and abused. A p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y to a s s e n t to adop- t i o n was s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d October 4 , 1979. A c i t a t i o n d i r e c t i n g t h e mother to a p p e a r a t a h e a r i n g i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court on December 21, 1979 was served upon h e r October 18 , 1979, a t Aberdeen, South Dakota. The D i s t r i c t Court appointed a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r M.E.M. on October 11. The District Court d i d n o t a p p o i n t c o u n s e l for t h e mother. The S t a n d i n g Rock T r i b a l Court was n o t i f i e d of t h e pending a c t i o n by a Yellowstone County social worker who s e n t c e r t i f i e d letters to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t on September 1 2 and O c t o b e r 1 5 , 1979. The T r i b a l C o u r t responded October 23 w i t h a l e t t e r to t h e s o c i a l worker s t a t i n g t h a t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t would assume j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e q u e s t e d arrangements be made f o r t h e r e t u r n of M.E.M. to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t . The T r i b a l Court was informed by letters d a t e d November 6 and 30 t h a t t h e county w e l f a r e department would resist t r a n s f e r o f j u r i s d i c t i o n u n l e s s t h e T r i b a l C o u r t v s " p l a n s f o r t h e d i s p o s i - t i o n of t h e case" were f i r s t s t a t e d . The T r i b a l Court d i d n o t respond to t h e s e demands. On December 11, t h e w e l f a r e department s e n t a mailgram to t h e mother s t a t i n g t h e show cause h e a r i n g would be h e l d i n t h e District Court a s scheduled. The mother, t h e n r e s i d i n g on t h e S t a n d i n g Rock R e s e r v a t i o n , sought t h e a s s i s t a n c e of t h e T r i b a l C o u r t , p r o se. The T r i b a l Court i s s u e d an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e -- District Court to r e t u r n c u s t o d y of M.E.M. to t h e t r i b e . The o r d e r of t h e T r i b a l Court was f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court December 21 b u t s h o r t l y a f t e r the t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g . P r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g were t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m , a deputy county a t t o r n e y , a w e l f a r e s o c i a l worker and a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s . The mother d i d n o t appear and was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The t r i b e was n o t repre- s e n t e d e i t h e r , o s t e n s i b l y assuming its o r d e r would e f f e c t t h e t r a n s f e r of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The o n l y w i t n e s s c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e was t h e social worker who recounted h e r u n s u c c e s s f u l e f f o r t s to a s s i s t t h e mother i n d e v e l o p i n g p r o p e r p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s . She a l l e g e d t h a t on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h e mother used e x c e s s i v e c o r p o r a l punishment and t h a t two of t h e c h i l d ' s u n c l e s had s e x u a l l y abused t h e c h i l d . She f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h e mother had been accused of p r o s t i t u t i o n by employees of t h e Rescue Mission i n B i l l i n g s , where t h e mother f r e q u e n t l y sought emergency housing, and t h a t she was unable to s u p p o r t h e r s e l f through any p r o p e r employment. The s o c i a l worker recommended permanent removal and a d o p t i v e placement. The D i s t r i c t Court took t h e matter under advisement. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e t r i b a l o r d e r t h e S t a t e r e s i s t e d t r a n s f e r and r e q u e s t e d a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g claiming t h e t r i b a l o r d e r c o n t a i n e d "numerous errors of l a w and [ d i d ] n o t c o n s t i t u t e a r e q u e s t to assume j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare Act." The District Court set March 1 3 , 1980, as t h e d a t e f o r f u r t h e r h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e of t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and t r a n s f e r of j u r i s d i c t i o n . Through t h e a s s i s t a n c e of t h e T r i b a l Court t h e mother r e t a i n e d Montana Legal S e r v i c e s (MLS) as counsel on March 1, 1980. The mother was r e p r e s e n t e d by M L S a t t h e second h e a r i n g , b u t t h e T r i b a l C o u r t was unable to send a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Over t h e o b j e c t i o n of t h e m o t h e r ' s c o u n s e l , who argued t h e h e a r i n g should be l i m i t e d s o l e l y to t h e q u e s t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n , a c o u s i n of t h e mother t e s t i f i e d about h e r d i s c o v e r y of t h e a l l e g e d s e x u a l abuse and h e r b e l i e f t h a t i f t h e c h i l d were r e t u r n e d to t h e mother or t r i b a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h e c h i l d would cer- t a i n l y be placed i n a s i t u a t i o n on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n which would r e s u l t i n f u r t h e r s e x u a l abuse by t h e u n c l e s . The s o c i a l worker added t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g a series of communications w i t h t r i b a l a u t h o r i t i e s . A f t e r t h e submission of b r i e f s by t h e p a r t i e s t h e District Court h e l d on June 1 3 , 1980, t h a t it had p r o p e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , d e n i e d t r a n s f e r of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e T r i b a l Court and o r d e r e d temporary c u s t o d y remain with t h e S t a t e u n t i l a f i n a l o r d e r was e n t e r e d . The mother made a p p l i c a t i o n to t h i s Court f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l r e q u e s t i n g t r a n s f e r of j u r i s d i c t i o n , which w a s denied September 1 7 , 1980. Judgment awarding permanent c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l t o t h e S t a t e and a u t h o r i t y to a s s e n t to adop- t i o n was e n t e r e d F e b r u a r y 27, 1981. Notice of appeal was t i m e l y f i l e d March 3 , 1981. The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by (1) f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t c o u n s e l for t h e a p p e l l a n t , ( 2 ) r e f u s i n g to t r a n s f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t , and ( 3 ) t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w i t h o u t t e s t i m o n y from a " q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t ." The a p p e l l a n t ' s c h a l l e n g e s o r i g i n a t e under t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t . The I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t of 1978 w a s passed by Congress i n r e s p o n s e to a s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e a t to t h e i n t e g r i t y of I n d i a n c u l t u r e s i n t h i s country. The A c t r e p r e s e n t s C o n g r e s s i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e concomitant c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s o f I n d i a n t r i b e s and I n d i a n c h i l d r e n ; i n t e r e s t s fundamental t o t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e i r mutual and v a l u a b l e h e r i t a g e . Congress found " t h a t an a l a r m i n g l y high p e r c e n t a g e of I n d i a n f a m i l i e s are broken up by t h e removal, o f t e n unwarranted, o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n from them by n o n t r i b a l p u b l i c and p r i v a t e agen- cies and t h a t an a l a r m i n g l y high p e r c e n t a g e of such c h i l d r e n are p l a c e d i n non-Ind i a n f o s t e r and a d o p t i v e homes and i n s t i t u t i o n s . . ." 25 U.S.C.A. S 1 9 0 1 ( 4 ) . W e s h a r e t h a t concern. Each i n d i v i d u a l is an amalgam of t h e predominant r e l i g o u s , l i n g u i s t i c , a n c e s t r a l and e d u c a t i o n a l in£ l u e n c e s e x i s t e n t i n h i s or h e r s u r r o u n d i n g s . I n d i a n p e o p l e , whether r e s i d i n g on a reser- v a t i o n or n o t , are immersed i n an environment which is i n most r e s p e c t s a n t i t h e t i c a l to t h e i r t r a d i t i o n s . Furthermore t h e c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y among I n d i a n t r i b e s is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y profound y e t o f t e n n o t f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d or a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d i n o u r s o c i e t y . Our c o n s t i t u t i o n r e c o g n i z e s " t h e d i s t i n c t and unique c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e of t h e American I n d i a n s and is committed i n its e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e i r c u l t u r a l i n t e g r i t y . " 1972 Mont.Const., A r t . X , S l ( 2 ) . P r e s e r v a t i o n of I n d i a n c u l t u r e is undoubtedly t h r e a t e n e d and t h e r e b y thwarted as t h e s i z e of any t r i b a l community dwindles. I n a d d i t i o n to its a r t i f a c t s , language and h i s t o r y , t h e members of a t r i b e are its c u l t u r e . Absent t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n , any c u l t u r e is l o s t and n e c e s s a r i l y r e l e g a t e d , a t b e s t , to a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n and c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . In a p p l y i n g o u r state l a w and t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t we are c o g n i z a n t of o u r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to pro- mote and p r o t e c t t h e unique I n d i a n c u l t u r e s of o u r state f o r a l l f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s of Montanans. For f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e act see: Note, I n R e D.L.L. & C.L.L., Minors: Ruling on t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e I n d i a n C h i l d Welfare A c t , 26 S.D.L.Rev. 67-78 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; Note, The I n d i a n C h i l d Welfare A c t of 1978: P r o v i s i o n s and P o l i c y , 25 S.D.L.Rev. 98-115 (1980); G u e r r e r o , I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t of 1 9 7 8 ' A Response t o The T h r e a t t o I n d i a n C u l t u r e Caused by F o s t e r and Adoptive Placement of I n d i a n C h i l d r e n , 7 Am. I n d i a n L .Rev. 51-77 ( 1980) ; Jones, I n d i a n Child Welfare: A ~ u r i s d i c t i o n a l Approach, 2 1 Ariz.L.Rev. 1123-1145 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; Barsh, The I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t of 1978: A Critical A n a l y s i s , 3 1 H a s t i n g s L . J . 1287-1336 ( 1980) ; Wamser, Child Welfare under t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t o f 1978: A New Mexico Focus, 1 0 N.M.L.Rev. 413-429 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Appointment - o f Counsel f o r t h e N a t u r a l Mother -- A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e District Court e r r e d by f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e mother. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e December 21 h e a r i n g showed t h e mother was d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y d i s a b l e d and t h e r e c i p i e n t of S. S. I. payments; t h e r e f o r e under t h e A c t t h e mother was e n t i t l e d to appointment of c o u n s e l . The S t a t e concedes t h e mother was e n t i t l e d to appointment o f c o u n s e l by both t h e A c t and o u r own s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA ( d i s c r e t i o n a r y appointment) ; however, a r g u e s t h e S t a t e , s h e n e v e r r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l t h e r e f o r e no error w a s committed. The a p p l i c a b l e s e c t i o n of t h e A c t is 25 U.S.C. S 1 9 1 2 ( b ) , which states : " ( b ) I n any case i n which t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s i n d i g e n c y , t h e p a r e n t o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o court-appointed c o u n s e l i n any removal, placement, or t e r m i n a t i o n proceeding . The c o u r t may, i n its d i s c r e t i o n , a p p o i n t coun- s e l f o r t h e c h i l d upon a f i n d i n g t h a t such appointment is i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d *I . . . The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e A c t s u p p o r t s t h e conten- t i o n of t h e a p p e l l a n t . "The s e p a r a t i o n of I n d i a n c h i l d r e n from t h e i r f a m i l i e s f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r s i n s i t u a t i o n s where one or more of t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t : (1) t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t does n o t understand t h e n a t u r e of t h e documents o r pro- c e e d i n g s involved; ( 2 ) n e i t h e r t h e c h i l d n o r t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s are r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l or o t h e r w i s e advised of t h e i r r i g h t s ; ( 3 ) t h e agency o f f i c i a l s involved are u n f a m i l i a r w i t h , and o f t e n d i s d a i n f u l of I n d i a n c u l t u r e and s o c i e t y ; ( 4 ) t h e c o n d i t i o n s which l e d to t h e s e p a r a t i o n are n o t demonstrably harmful o r are r e m e d i a b l e or t r a n s i t o r y i n c h a r a c t e r ; ( 5 ) r e s p o n s i b l e t r i b a l a u t h o r i t i e s are n o t c o n s u l t e d a b o u t or even informed of t h e n o n t r i b a l govern- ment a c t i o n s . " S.Rep. No. 95-597, 9 5 t h Cong. 1st S e s s . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . W e i n t e r p r e t t h e A c t as r e q u i r i n g t h e appointment of coun- sel f o r i n d i g e n t I n d i a n p a r e n t s i n " c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s " as d e f i n e d i n t h e A c t . 25 U.S.C. S 1 9 0 3 ( 1 ) . The second s e n t e n c e of 1 9 1 2 ( b ) allows t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e appointment of c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d . By i n f e r e n c e t h e appointment of coun- sel i n t h e case of an i n d i g e n t p a r e n t is mandatory. Our l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is c o n g r u e n t with t h e remedial c h a r a c t e r of t h e A c t and i n l i g h t of t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t i e s of t h i s mother we must reject t h e S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e mother s h o u l d have r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l . F a i l u r e of t h e District Court t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l was error. W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and remand t h i s cause f o r a h e a r i n g d e novo. In -- r e v i e w i n g t h e record we n o t e much of t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t h e a r i n g would have been excluded i f p r o p e r o b j e c t i o n had been made. The mother is e n t i t l e d t o a d e novo h e a r i n g . -- T r a n s f e r o f J u r i s d i c t i o n - Our h o l d i n g r e t u r n s t h e p a r t i e s to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e posi- t i o n s p r i o r t o t h e December 21, 1979, h e a r i n g w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t t h e n a t u r a l mother w i l l now be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . A p p e l l a n t u r g e s t h i s Court to o r d e r immediate t r a n s f e r of j u r i s - d i c t i o n to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t . Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e . Because M.E.M. was domiciled i n B i l l i n g s , Montana a t t h e commencement of t h e proceeding and n o t on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n of h e r t r i b e , t h e e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e t r i b e c r e a t e d by t h e A c t must f i r s t be a d j u d i c a t e d . S e c t i o n 1 9 1 1 ( b ) o f t h e A c t d e f i n e s t h e e x t e n t of t h i s r e f e r r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . " I n any S t a t e c o u r t proceeding f o r t h e f o s t e r care placement o f , or t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i q h t s t o , an I n d i a n c h i l d n o t domiciled o r r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e I n d i a n c h i l d ' s t r i b e , t h e c o u r t , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f good -- -- c a u s e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , s h a l l t r a n s f e r such pro- ceed i n y t n h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e t r i b e , a b s e n t o b j e c t i o n by e i t h e r p a r e n t , upon p e t i t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r e n t or t h e I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n or the I n d i a n c h i l d s t r i b e : Provided, That s u c h t r a n s f e r s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o d e c l i n a t i o n by t h e t r i b a l c o u r t of such t r i b e ." ( ~ m p h a s i s added.) Upon remand t h e District Court must f i r s t d e c i d e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e . The burden of showing "good c a u s e to t h e c o n t r a r y " must be c a r r i e d by t h e S t a t e w i t h clear and convincing e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d would be i n j u r e d by s u c h a t r a n s f e r . W e d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r state c o u r t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Department of t h e I n t e r i o r i n its d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a l t h o u g h i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d could p r e v e n t t r a n s f e r of j u r i s d i c - t i o n upon a " c l e a r and convincing" showing by t h e S t a t e . Qua1 i f i e d Expert Testimony A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y as r e q u i r e d by t h e A c t . S e c t i o n 1 9 1 2 ( f ) states: "No t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s may be o r d e r e d i n such p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e absence of a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y v a i i - f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s , t h a t t h e contin=dp c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d by t h e p a r e n t or I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n is l i k e l y t o - r e s u l t i n s e r i o u s emo- t i o n a l o r p h y s i c a l damage to t h e c h i l d ." The A c t does n o t d e f i n e " q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s . " The r e c o r d shows t h e e x p e r t c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e i n t h i s case had l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e department and one y e a r i n t h e area of c h i l d r e n s ' s e r v i c e s . W e do n o t h e r e hold t h a t it w a s error to a d m i t t h i s e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n . In d e c i d i n g whether t h e r e is p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n f o r an e x p e r t o p i n i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t should c o n s i d e r t h e Department of I n t e r i o r g u i d e l i n e s which p r o v i d e : "b. Persons w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are most l i k e l y t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s f o r purposes of I n d i a n c h i l d c u s t o d y proceedings: " ( i ) A member of t h e I n d i a n c h i l d ' s tribe who is r e c o g n i z e d by t h e t r i b a l community as knowledgeable i n t r i b a l customs as t h e y p e r t a i n t o f a m i l y o r g a n i z a t i o n and c h i l d r e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s . " ( i i ) A l a y e x p e r t w i t n e s s having s u b s t a n t i a l e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e d e l i v e r y of c h i l d and f a m i l y s e r v i c e s t o I n d i a n s , and e x t e n s i v e knowledge of p r e v a i l i n g social and c u l t u r a l s t a n d a r d s and c h i l d r e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s w i t h i n t h e I n d i a n c h i l d I s t r i b e . " ( iii) A p r o f e s s i o n a l person having s u b s t a n t i a l e d u c a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e area of h i s or h e r s p e c i a l t y . " 44 Fed.Reg. 67593 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . W e are aware t h a t t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s add a dimension to e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y n o t normally r e q u i r e d . However we f e e l t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s comport w i t h t h e s p i r i t of t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t and t h e r e e r e deem them to be a p p l i c a b l e . I n c o n c l u s i o n , judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s is r e v e r s e d and t h i s case remanded f o r a h e a r i n g d e novo. The -- District Court must f i r s t c o n s i d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e and i f t r a n s f e r is d e n i e d , then proceed i n accordance w i t h t h i s opin- i o n and a p p l i c a b l e p o r t i o n s of t h e I n d i a n Child Welfare A c t of W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e .............................. J u s t i c e s Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: I dissent from the result of the majority opinion. The cause should be reversed, but it should be reversed with instructions to the District Court to transfer immediately these proceedings to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court of the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation at Fort Yates, North Dakota. After the proceedings were instituted in the District Court of Yellowstone County, the District Court was served on February 22, 1980, with the following instruments from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court: 1. An authorization for legal representation signed by the mother of the child here. 2. A letter from Thomas J. Gunderson, Chief Judge of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court stating: ". . . We are requesting transfer of jurisdiction to this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. . ." 3. A copy of the motion by the mother in this case to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court for a transfer proceedings to it from the Yellowstone County District Court. 4. An order dated December 14, 1979, signed by Isaac Dog Eagle, Jr., Tribal Judge of the Tribal Court assuming jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The social worker of the Department of Public Welfare in Yellowstone County on November 3 0 , 1979 had earlier advised the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court that it would not transfer jurisdiction to the Tribal Court upon the following grounds : "Please refer to our letter of November 6, 1979 requesting advisement of your plans for the above-named child before any arrangements were made for her to return to the reservation. We have not heard from you and our permanent custody hearing date is three weeks away . . ." In determining "good cause" for refusing transfer of jurisdiction to an Indian Tribal Court, the District Court may not consider socio-economic conditions that eventually may arise out of the disposition by the Tribal Court. The federal guidelines, contained in 44 Fed. Reg. 228 (1979) at p . 67591, state: "(c) Socio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy of Tribal or Bureau of Indian Affairs Social Services or judicial systems may not be considered in a determination that good cause exists. " The District Court in this case refused to transfer the proceedings to the Tribal Court upon the perceived impression that the child's custody would be given to persons on the reservation with whom the ~istrict Court, and the Department of Public Welfare, were not satisfied. This is not the function, however, of a good-cause determination under section 1911(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Those are matters for decision by the Tribal Court and under section 1911(d) of that Act, the United States, every state, and every Indian tribe shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of any Indian tribe applicable to Indian child custody proceedings to the same extent that such entities give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of any other judicial entity. The district courts must be prepared to recognize that Indian tribal courts have full power to act in matters of Indian child adoptions and custodial proceedings, not involving divorce, and the jurisdiction of the tribal courts is on a par in those matters with the jurisdiction of the d i s t r i c t courts of t h i s s t a t e . It cannot, i n m y view, be "good cause," t o refuse t r a n s f e r of the proceedings t o a t r i b a l court on the perception t h a t the t r i b a l court may not a c t with respect t o the child i n the way w e would wish it t o a c t . The purpose of t h e Indian Child Welfare Act i s t o remove a s f a r a s possible t h e white man's perceptions i n these matters where Indian values may c o n f l i c t . I would reverse the case and d i r e c t the D i s t r i c t Court t o t r a n s f e r the cause forthwith t o the Tribal Court t h a t has requested jurisdiction i n t h e proceedings, before a federal court does it f o r us. / J u s t i c e d