Title: IN THE MATTER OF: M.S.

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF: M.S.  IN THE MATTER OF: M.S. 2010 OK 46 Case Number: 103921 Decided: 06/15/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF: M.S. and K.S., Deprived Children. PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant/Appellee. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II ¶0 The Puyallup Tribe of Indians moved to transfer jurisdiction of a case involving two Puyallup Tribe Indian children to tribal court or, in the alternative, to change placement to a tribal member after the termination of the parental rights of their parents. The trial court denied relief, finding "good cause" for denying transfer existed because of the length of time the State had exercised jurisdiction prior to the Tribe's motion, the relationships the children had developed and the relevant evidence located in Oklahoma. The Tribe appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. This Court previously granted certiorari. THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED; TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION IS REVERSED; REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION. Michael E. Yeksavich, YEKSAVICH LAW OFFICE, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Debra W. McCormick, Eugene K. Bertman, Jennifer McBee, RUBENSTEIN McCORMICK & PITTS, P.L.L.C., Edmond, Oklahoma, for Appellant, Jerry S. Moore, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Gary Huggins, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Michael J. Spychalski, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Wagoner, Oklahoma, for Appellee, Amy B. McFarland, Wagoner, Oklahoma, for Minor Children. OPINION WATT, J.: ¶1 In this case we consider a jurisdictional dispute between the tribal court of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the courts of this state involving the placement of two Indian children, M.S. and K.S. We previously granted certiorari. We reverse and remand. FACTS ¶2 This case began as a deprived child proceeding in August, 2004, when an emergency petition was filed by the State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Human Services, to remove M.S. and K.S. ("the children"), and their two older half-siblings, A.H. and K.H., from their parents' home. M.S. and K.S. are registered members of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians (the Tribe), as is their father. All of the children have the same mother, who is of Cherokee descent, but the two older children have a different father. All four children were placed in a foster home together, but the oldest child, A.H., an enrolled Cherokee member, moved to Texas to live with her biological father. M.S. and K.S. remained in the foster home with their older brother, K.H., also a Cherokee member, ¶3 The foster parents (the Simmons) have expressed an interest in adopting K.H., M.S. and K.S., although no petition for adoption had been filed as to M.S. and K.S. at the time this appeal was commenced on October 26, 2006. During the pendency of this appeal, M.S. and K.S. were placed with their great aunt in Tampa, Florida. ¶4 After the termination case concluded, the State gave notice to the Simmons of a change in placement. The Simmons filed an objection to removal of the children from their home and requested a hearing. Notice of the hearing was not sent to the Tribe. Although it learned of the hearing, it complains it did not have time to file a written response. After the Simmons' objection to removal was sustained, the court considered the Tribe's motions for transfer and change of placement. After a hearing on September 21, 2006, the trial court denied the Tribe's requested relief. In its September 28, 2006, Order Overruling Petition to Transfer to Tribal Court and Overruling Motion for Placement, the trial court held: There is good cause for the Court to decline to transfer jurisdiction to the Puyallup Tribe due to the length of time that the State of Oklahoma has exercised jurisdiction prior to the tribe's motion and the relationships established between the children and their foster parents, their attorney, their CASA, DHS social workers, and medical providers. Furthermore, most relevant evidence regarding the children is located in the State of Oklahoma. ¶5 The Tribe's alternative Motion for Placement, in which the Tribe requested placement with the children's biological great aunt residing in Florida, a Puyallup tribal member, was overruled in the same order. ¶6 At issue in this case is whether COCA correctly interpreted the ICWA when it affirmed the trial court's order denying the Tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction to tribal court and its alternative motion for relative placement during the pre-adoption stage of these proceedings. We hold COCA erred: (a) by interpreting the ICWA to preclude tribal court jurisdiction after the parental rights to two Indian children were terminated, (b) by finding "good cause" not to transfer, and (c) by failing to use the "clear and convincing" evidence standard in its review of the trial court's finding of "good cause" to deny the Tribe's requests. We previously granted the Tribe's petition for certiorari. We reverse and remand. JURISDICTION ¶7 For purposes of the ICWA, tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over "child custody proceedings" involving Indian children who are domiciled within the reservation. See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, ¶8 In contrast to the present case, it is undisputed that neither M.S., K.S., nor their parents, resided on the reservation. We must therefore consider 25 U.S.C. §1911(b) ¶9 The trial court's denial of transfer to tribal court was based on its findings of "good cause to the contrary," as noted above, but not because the Tribe's transfer request came after the termination proceeding ended. However, in support of the trial court's judgment, the State argued on appeal that because the Tribe did not move to transfer this case to tribal court at the time of the foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceedings, transfer was not required or allowed under §1911(b). COCA agreed. ¶10 The record indicates the timeliness of the motion to transfer jurisdiction was not raised in the trial court but was first raised on appeal. The Tribe argued it could not be considered. COCA held that if the Tribe, as the Appellant, had raised an issue for reversal for the first time on appeal, consideration of it would be foreclosed, but that an Appellee is free to raise an argument which provides an additional reason to affirm the judgment, citing McMinn v. City of Oklahoma City, ¶11 Regardless of the trial court's reasoning, COCA's construction of §1911(b) constitutes a question of law which affects the intent and purpose of the ICWA. COCA's opinion also denies tribal court jurisdiction over an ICWA proceeding involving two members of its tribe, in favor of Oklahoma courts. It therefore affects our jurisdiction, as well. a. Purpose of the ICWA ¶12 At issue then is whether §1911(b) should be construed so narrowly and whether this construction complies with Congressional intent and the purpose of the ICWA. In arguing that the specific inclusion in §1911(b) of only "foster care placement" and "termination of parental rights" proceedings indicates an intent to exclude transfers of the other "child custody proceedings" defined by 25 U.S.C. §1903, ¶13 We must read §1911(b) as it is written. The court "shall transfer" foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings absent objections and a showing of good cause to the contrary. Reading what is contained in the statute, however, does not require us to read into the statute what is not there, i.e., that transfers may only be granted if requested before a termination of parental rights proceeding is concluded. ¶14 When considering the ICWA as a whole, as we must, we first look to the Congressional declaration of policy stated in 25 U.S.C. §1902, [I]t is clear from the very text of the ICWA, not to mention its legislative history and the hearings that led to its enactment, that Congress was concerned with rights of Indian families and Indian communities vis-a-vis state authorities. [footnote omitted] More specifically, its purpose was, in part, to make clear that in certain situations the state courts did not have jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Indeed, the congressional findings that are a part of the statute demonstrate that Congress perceived the States and their courts as partly responsible for the problem it intended to correct. 490 U.S. at 44-45, 109 S. Ct. at 1606 [emphasis in original]. In a footnote accompanying the above text, the Court stated: This conclusion in inescapable from a reading of the entire statute, the main effect of which is to curtail state authority. See especially §§1901, 1911-1916, 1918. [emphasis added]. 490 U.S. at 45, 109 S. Ct. at 1607. With that purpose in mind, we cannot construe §1911(b), as a matter of law, as an expression of intent to preclude tribal court jurisdiction when transfer is requested after parental rights are terminated. ¶15 Recognizing the importance of Indian children to Indian tribes, the Supreme Court also quoted approvingly from a case of the Utah Supreme Court which had become a well-known case on the ICWA, In re Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962 (1986):10 [I]t is precisely in recognition of this relationship [between Indian tribes and Indian children], however, that the ICWA designates the tribal court as the exclusive forum for the determination of custody and adoption matters for reservation-domiciled Indian children, and the preferred forum for nondomiciliary Indian Children. [State] abandonment law cannot be used to frustrate the federal legislative judgment expressed in the ICWA that the interests of the tribe in custodial decisions made with respect to Indian children are as entitled to respect as the interests of the parents. [emphasis added.] Holyfield, b. Standard of Review ¶16 While Holyfield is factually distinguishable in its application to reservation-domiciled Indian children under §1911(a), it is instructive here because of the Court's emphasis on "concurrent but presumptively tribal jurisdiction" in cases under §1911(b). Holyfield, ¶17 While this Court has not decided the issue of the standard of proof required to prove "good cause to the contrary" in §1911(b) cases, ¶18 "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established." In the Matter of the Adoption of L.D.S., ¶19 We acknowledge this case does not require us to decide whether parental rights were terminated by the appropriate "clear and convincing" evidence standard. However, we see a similarity in the potential for harm to the relationship between an Indian child and the child's tribe if the standard of proof required for "good cause" not to transfer is inadequate. It could allow a state court to sever the relationship between child and tribe and to determine the future course of Indian children's lives without consideration of the "unique values of Indian culture" being reflected in their ultimate placement. See §1902, n. 10, supra. The "clear and convincing" standard is the appropriate standard to use here. To the extent In the Matter of J.B., c. Good Cause ¶20 Unfortunately, "good cause" is not defined by the ICWA. Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Guidelines, ¶21 The length of time in which the State exercised jurisdiction before the Tribe's request for transfer must be addressed because it affects the timeliness issue under §1911(b), i.e., whether transfer may be approved following the termination proceeding. Resolution of this issue will resolve the other two reasons for denying transfer, i.e., the children's relationships and the availability of the evidence in Oklahoma. ¶22 The Tribe was not initially given notice on September 8, 2004, when the State filed its petition resulting in the removal of the children from the home. The State placed the children with the Simmons. The Tribe sought to intervene in this case on December 16, 2004, within three months after the petition was filed. It appears from the record that the State and the Tribe had an agreement that if reunification efforts failed and the State sought the termination of parental rights, the State would place M.S. and K.S. in a Puyallup foster home. When it became obvious that reunification would not occur, the State moved to terminate parental rights on March 28, 2006. Parental rights were terminated on June 21, 2006, by order filed June 23, 2006. ¶23 In apparent compliance with its agreement with the Tribe, the State gave notice of removal of placement on June 26, 2006. The Simmons objected to removal on July 5, 2006, and filed a request for hearing through the children's attorney. However, the attorney did not serve a copy on the Tribe. In an affidavit by the Tribe's counsel, Sandra Cooper, dated July 27, 2006, we learn that a copy of the motion was luckily included in a packet of other materials mailed to the Tribe, but with insufficient time to prepare for the hearing. The affidavit also provides that the Tribe's efforts to participate in the hearing by telephone conference were attempted in vain. ¶24 The Tribe's witness, Tara Reynon, social worker and director of children's services for the Tribe, testified as to the alleged "24 month gap" which had passed since the children were removed from their home. She also spoke about the Tribe's initial support for reunification of M.S. and K.S. with their parents. She stated: The first 12 months the Tribe was under the understanding that the children would remain here so that they could try to reunite with their parents. That was the first 12 months. And then since May of 2005 when we knew that they were - when we were getting the information that possibly that they wouldn't be reunited that the children would be moved to Florida with a relative, which was our wishes from the beginning. So 12 months, we look at to where it was hopefully reunification. So truly after it has only been 12 months, we're looking for permanency. And not only that, but termination didn't even occur until this year. So it hasn't even been 12 [months] since the children were free for adoption. . . . We were very hopeful they would get their children back. ¶25 Delay also occurred due to the untimely death of the children's great aunt, Gabriella Morely, the sister of Michelle Smith-Valdez, the current custodian. After plans were made for the children to be placed with Gabriella and her husband in Florida, she developed breast cancer and died shortly thereafter. Subsequent to Morely's death, Smith-Valdez expressed an interest in becoming the custodian of the children. ¶26 As noted above, parental rights were terminated on June 21, 2006, in this case. The Tribe offered three letters from Sandra Cooper, ICW Liaison for the Tribe, which were admitted into evidence at the transfer and placement hearing. They were addressed to Naomi Kelly, DHS Child Welfare Specialist. These letters are dated May 5, 2005, July 8, 2005 and November 30, 2005, and show that as much as a year before termination occurred, the Tribe showed an interest in having the children placed with Puyallup tribal family members. The evidence also shows that the family members had an interest in having the children and that the State was aware of their interest at that time. ¶27 COCA interpreted the Tribe's actions as inadequate to overcome the requisite "good cause to the contrary" to justify denial of transfer under §1911(b). The timeliness issue was decided against the Tribe because transfer was not requested at the time of the "foster care placement" or "termination of parental rights" proceedings as a matter of law under §1911(b). The appellate court appears to have satisfied itself that good cause to deny transfer existed on the basis of a lack of diligence. ¶28 However, we see the Tribe's actions in a different light. We see delays caused through circumstances outside the Tribe's control. Supporting the State's reunification efforts should not result in allegations of a Tribe's lack of diligence in requesting transfer. Evidence shows the Tribe's interest in these children through the letters admitted into evidence, the agreement with the State for placement with a tribal member or family member if termination was sought, and the availability of not one, but two, great aunts wishing to take the children permanently. The record shows the Tribe was effectively prevented from attending a hearing which resulted in placement with the Simmons. The Tribe believed their agreement with the State for placement with tribal members or relatives would be honored, and because of this, waited to request transfer. It appears the Tribe was unfairly penalized for entering into that agreement. Moreover, the unfortunate circumstances of the death of the Children's great aunt, Gabriella Morely, led to further delays. ¶29 In In the Interest of A.B., 2003 ND 98, 663 N.W.2d 625 , a case this Court cited approvingly in The Matter of Baby Boy L., ¶30 The N.D. Supreme Court considered the BIA Guidelines' discussion of "good cause" to deny transfer and stated: As relevant to this case, the BIA Guidelines state that good cause to deny transfer of a child custody proceeding to tribal court exists if the proceeding is at an advanced stage when the petition to transfer is received, or if the evidence to decide the case could not be adequately presented in the tribal court without undue hardship to the parties or the witnesses. BIA Guidelines, § C.3(b)(i) and (iii) at 67591. In re A.B., ¶31 The Referee determined the length of time elapsed before requesting transfer ran from March 2001 until July 2002. In reaching that determination, the Referee found the foster care proceeding was part of the termination proceeding, and that the motion to transfer was thus filed at an advanced stage of the overall child custody proceeding and, therefore, untimely. The juvenile court disagreed, ruling the two phases were separate proceedings. Moreover, the court found the tribe had filed its motion to transfer within approximately seven weeks after the petition to terminate parental rights was filed, and about two weeks before the scheduled trial, and that the termination proceeding was therefore not at an advanced stage when the transfer was requested. The Supreme Court agreed and upheld the juvenile court's order overruling the Referee. ¶32 Whether a motion to transfer jurisdiction is timely is determined on a case-by-case basis. In re AB, 2003 ND 98, ¶21, 663 N.W.2d 625 , 632-633. Relying on the BIA Guidelines, the Court noted: [T]he commentary to the BIA Guidelines indicates the requirement for a timely motion to transfer precludes a party from using delay tactics to "wear down the other side by requiring the case to be tried twice." Id. At a minimum, the BIA Guidelines contemplate that a motion to transfer is not timely if transfer would require a retrial. In re AB, ¶33 In the instant case, it cannot be said that the Tribe's delay in requesting transfer "was not prevented by the actions of the State . . . ." In fact, the evidence supports a finding that the Tribe's actions were consistent with its belief that, when reunification failed, the State would proceed to satisfy its agreement with the Tribe. The record shows the motion to terminate parental rights was filed on March 28, 2006, but the order of termination was not filed until June 23, 2006. Next, the State's notice to remove the children from the foster home was filed on June 27, 2006. The Simmons' objection was then filed on July 5, 2006, but the Tribe only inadvertently received a copy of it and was, in effect, prevented from participating in a meaningful way. On July 27, 2006, the trial court sustained the Simmons' objection to removal of the children. Then, on August 4, 2006, the Tribe filed its motion to transfer, followed by its petition to transfer on September 21, 2006. In summary, the Tribe had no reason to file a motion to transfer until sometime between July 5, 2006, when the Simmons objected to removal, and July 27, 2006, when the trial court sustained their objection. In other words, the longest the Tribe waited from the time of the objection until the petition to transfer was filed was seven weeks. ¶34 We also find this result to be consistent with Oklahoma's Indian Child Welfare Act. Oklahoma's ICWA applies to all child custody proceedings and thus provides better protection to the Tribe. In any case where State or Federal law applicable to a child custody proceeding under State or Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child than the rights provided under this subchapter, the State or Federal court shall apply the State or Federal standard. [emphasis added.] ¶35 In Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, ¶36 The finding of "good cause" not to transfer was against the clear and convincing evidence in this case. The factual circumstances in this case should have worked in favor of the Tribe, not against it. COCA's holding that transfer was not allowed under §1911(b), as a matter of law, violated the purpose and intent of the ICWA to preserve the bond between Indian tribe and child. Construing the statute in the manner it did, COCA effectively made the Tribe's protections under the ICWA unavailable to it. The order denying the Tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court and COCA's ruling affirming it are reversed. PLACEMENT ¶37 We previously noted that during the pendency of this appeal, the trial court executed an "Order Changing Placement" on December 18, 2008, providing for placement with Michelle Smith-Valdez, the great aunt of M.S. and K.S. The trial court received evidence and then filed its Order Changing Placement on December 19, 2008. The court ruled there was no longer good cause to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences and placed the children with Smith-Valdez. The order incorporates and adopts the Florida Placement Transition Plan (Plan) attached thereto for M.S. and K.S., and the time frame for the Plan is December, 2008, through June 2009. The Plan is ongoing, however, until the court sets the next review. ¶38 On April 15, 2009, 13 days before COCA issued its first opinion on April 28, 2009, the Tribe requested a stay of the proceedings, alleging that a hearing scheduled for June of that year may moot the appeal. It explained that the trial court had conducted a placement review hearing regarding the temporary placement of M.S. and K.S. on December 15 and 16, 2008, and that another one was set for June 9, 2009. ¶39 The Tribe filed its petition for rehearing on May 18, 2009, raising, inter alia, the mootness issue because of the new placement order. COCA issued its Order Granting Rehearing and Denying Motion to Stay on July 15, 2009, the same day it issued its new opinion on rehearing. ¶40 While the propriety of the placement order initially entered was properly preserved for appeal, on certiorari the Tribe contended the new order required us to declare the entire COCA opinion, as amended on rehearing, moot. This we decline to do. However, we also find it unnecessary to consider the errors raised by the Tribe on appeal regarding the first placement order ¶41 Although COCA noted in its Order Granting Rehearing and Denying Motion to Stay, that the new order is "provisional and not final" and "does not affect or rescind previous rulings made in this case, but shall apply in the present and prospectively," we hold the new order renders the first order ineffective. THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED; TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION IS REVERSED; REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION. EDMONDSON, C.J., OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, COLBERT, JJ. - CONCUR HARGRAVE, WINCHESTER, JJ. - CONCUR IN PART; DISSENT IN PART TAYLOR, V.C.J. - DISSENT REIF, J. - DISQUALIFIED FOOT