IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 217A19

Filed 14 August 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: E.J.B., R.S.B.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 15 

March 2019 by Judge Faith Fickling in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard 

in the Supreme Court on 17 June 2020. 

Stephanie Jamison, Senior County Attorney, for petitioner-appellee 

Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

Law Office of Matthew C. Phillips, PLLC, by Matthew C. Phillips for appellee 

Guardian ad Litem. 

Robert W. Ewing for respondent-appellant father.

BEASLEY, Chief Justice. 

On appeal, respondent-father asks this Court to vacate the trial court’s order 

terminating his parental rights and remand the matter to the trial court for 

compliance with all requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (the Act).

1

Because we conclude that the trial court failed to comply with the Act’s notice 

requirements and that the post termination proceedings before the trial court did not

cure the errors, we remand the matter to the trial court so that all of the requirements 

of the Act can be followed. 

 

1 We use the terms “Indian” and “Indian child” to comply with the terminology used 

in the Indian Child Welfare Act. 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-2-

I. Background

The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile 

petition on 7 April 2015, alleging that Eric and Robert2 were neglected and dependent 

juveniles. The trial court entered a Non-Secure Custody Order on 7 April 2015, 

granting custody of the children to DSS. That same day, the DSS social worker 

contacted respondent-father, who denied being the children’s biological father. The 

trial court held an initial seven-day hearing on 14 April 2015 and found that the Act 

did not apply. At the time of this hearing, respondent-father had not yet been served

with the juvenile petition. 

In preparation for the adjudication and disposition hearing scheduled for 3 

June 2015, DSS filed a court summary report on 1 June 2015. The report included a 

section titled “Indian Child Welfare Act,” which indicated that respondent-father 

“reported that he is affiliated with the Cherokee Indian tribe” but noted that “he has 

not provided this social worker with the necessary information to further 

investigate.” The report also included the transcript from a Child and Family Team 

Meeting held on 4 May 2015, that quoted respondent-father as telling the team his 

“roots are Irish and Indian.” 

Respondent-father was personally served at the 3 June 2015 hearing, and the 

trial court found good cause to continue the matter until 12 August 2015. The 

 

2 Pseudonyms are used to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of reading. 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-3-

adjudication hearing was continued for good cause on 12 August 2015 and ultimately 

took place on 3 December 2015. The trial court adjudicated the children to be 

dependent juveniles, as defined by N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(9), and ordered that they 

remain in the custody of DSS. 

The trial court held multiple permanency planning hearings until the trial 

court ultimately granted sole physical and legal custody to the children’s biological 

mother on 2 August 2017. Seven additional DSS court reports filed prior to this 

hearing included respondent-father’s statements about his affiliation with the 

Cherokee Indian tribe. The trial court converted the matter to a Chapter 50 civil 

custody action and terminated the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. Respondentfather gave notice of his appeal on 11 October 2017.3

While respondent-father’s appeal was pending, DSS filed a second juvenile 

petition on 2 January 2018, alleging that the minor children were neglected and 

dependent juveniles. The trial court entered a Non-Secure Custody Order on 2 

January 2018, granting custody of the children to DSS. The children remained in the 

custody of DSS throughout these proceedings. On 10 July 2018 the trial court 

 

3 The Court of Appeals issued a unanimous unpublished opinion on 1 May 2018

dismissing respondent-father’s appeal from the trial court’s order granting custody to the 

children’s biological mother. See In re E.J.B., 812 S.E.2d 911, 2018 WL 2016138 (N.C. Ct. 

App. 2018) (unpublished). 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-4-

adjudicated the children neglected and dependent as defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(9) 

and (15). 

On 24 August 2018 DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent-father’s 

parental rights. A termination hearing was held on 15 February 2019, at which the 

trial court found that respondent-father neglected the children as defined in N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-101(15), failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led 

to the removal of the juveniles, and willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the 

cost of care for his children. The trial court concluded that it was in the best interests

of the juveniles to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights. Respondent-father 

filed his notice of appeal on 27 March 2019. 

While respondent-father’s appeal was pending before this Court, the trial court 

held post termination of parental rights hearings on 20 August 2019 and 18 February 

2020, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-908. At the 18 February 2020 post termination 

hearing, the court made specific findings regarding compliance with the Act. The trial 

court found that, pursuant to the Act, notices had been sent to two Cherokee tribes 

in Oklahoma and one Cherokee tribe in North Carolina. Each notice had also been

sent to the appropriate regional director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Each relevant tribe was served by mail, with return receipt requested. As of 30 

August 2019, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation tribes 

both replied and indicated that the children were neither registered members nor

eligible to be registered as members of those tribes. The United Keetoowah Band of 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-5-

Cherokee Indians tribe received the notice in August 2019 but failed to respond. 

Ultimately, the trial court found that the Act did not apply. 

II. Indian Child Welfare Act 

In 1978 the United States Congress passed the Act, which established

“minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families 

and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes” in order to “protect 

the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of 

Indian tribes and families.” 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (2018). 

The Act was a product of growing awareness in the mid-1970s of abusive child 

welfare practices that led to an “Indian child welfare crisis . . . of massive 

proportions.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 9 (1978) (hereinafter House Report); see also

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 32, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 1599–

1600). Studies conducted by the Association on American Indian Affairs in 1969 and 

1974, and presented during Senate oversight hearings in 1974, showed that between 

twenty-five and thirty-five percent of all Native American children were living in 

foster homes, adoptive homes, or institutions. Miss. Band, 490 U.S. at 32–33, 109 S. 

Ct. at 1600 (citing Indian Child Welfare Program, Hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Indian Affairs of the S. Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 3 

(statement of William Byler) (hereinafter 1974 Hearings)); see also House Report, at 

9. Moreover, approximately ninety percent of Native American children removed 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-6-

from their families were placed in non-Native American homes.4 Miss. Band, 490 U.S. 

at 33, 109 S. Ct. at 1600 (citing 1974 Hearings, at 75–83). On the basis of extensive 

empirical and anecdotal evidence collected during congressional hearings in 1974, 

1977, and 1978, Congress concluded that the “wholesale separation of Indian children 

from their families is perhaps the most tragic and destructive aspect of American 

Indian life today,” causing long term emotional harm for Native American children 

who lose their cultural identity,5 mass trauma for Native American families,6 and the 

erosion of tribal communities, heritage, and sovereignty.7 See House Report at 9; see 

also Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg. 38,778, 38,781 (June 14, 

2016) (to be codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 23).

Although this crisis flowed from multiple sources, Congress found that state 

 

4 House Report, at 11 (“Discriminatory standards have made it virtually impossible for 

most Indian couples to qualify as foster or adoptive parents, since they are based on middleclass values.”).

5 1974 Hearings at 27–28 (citing research showing that the majority of removed Native 

American children suffered identity confusion contributing to problems “in meeting the 

demands of adult life” and the “[d]evelopment of self-defeating styles of behavior and 

attitudes”).

6 1974 Hearings at 28 (citing anecdotal evidence of “[g]rief of village parents, not only at 

their children’s leaving home, but also at their children’s personal disintegration away from 

home”).

7 Congress found that this “wholesale removal of Tribal children by nontribal government 

and private agencies constitutes a serious threat to Tribes’ existence as on-going, selfgoverning communities,” and that the “future and integrity of Indian tribes and Indian 

families are in danger because of this crisis.” Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed. 

Reg. 38,778, 38,781 (June 14, 2016) (to be codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 23) (alterations in original) 

(quoting 124 Cong. Rec. H38103). 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-7-

agencies and courts were largely to blame for conducting unnecessary child removal 

and termination of parental rights proceedings. See Indian Child Welfare Act 

Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg. at 38,779–80) (citing 25 U.S.C. 1901(4)–(5)); House Report 

at 10–12). During the 1978 hearings, Mr. Calvin Isaac, Tribal Chief of the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians and a representative of the National Tribal Chairmen’s 

Association, summarized the consensus that had emerged regarding the principal 

cause of the crisis as follows:

One of the most serious failings of the present system is 

that Indian children are removed from the custody of their 

natural parents by nontribal government authorities who 

have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and 

social premises underlying Indian home life and 

childrearing. Many of the individuals who decide the fate 

of our children are at best ignorant of our cultural values, 

and at worst contemptful [sic] of the Indian way and 

convinced that removal, usually to a non-Indian household 

or institution, can only benefit an Indian child.

Hearings on S. 1214 Before the Subcomm. on Indian Affairs and Public Lands of the 

H. Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 95th Cong. 2d 191–12 (1978).

Congress found that “in judging the fitness of a particular family, many social 

workers, ignorant of Indian cultural values and social norms, make decisions that are 

wholly inappropriate in the context of Indian family life and so they frequently 

discover neglect or abandonment where none exists.” House Report at 10. “For 

example, the dynamics of Indian extended families are largely misunderstood. An 

Indian child may have scores of, perhaps more than a hundred, relatives who are 

counted as close, responsible members of the family. Many social workers, untutored 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-8-

in the ways of Indian family life, or assuming them to be socially irresponsible, 

consider leaving the child with persons outside the nuclear family as neglect and thus 

as grounds for terminating parental rights.” Id. Congress incorporated these 

sentiments into the congressional findings supporting the Act as follows: 

(3) that there is no resource that is more vital to the 

continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than 

their children . . . .

(4) that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families 

are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their 

children from them by nontribal public and private 

agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such 

children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive 

homes and institutions; and

(5) that the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction 

over Indian child custody proceedings through 

administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to 

recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and 

the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian 

communities and families.

25 U.S.C. § 1901; Miss. Band, 490 U.S. at 35–36, 109 S. Ct. at 1601.

The Act governs child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Child 

custody proceedings include: (1) foster care placements; (2) terminations of parental 

rights; (3) preadoptive placements; and (4) adoptive placements. 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1903(1)(i)–(iv) (2018). An Indian child is defined as “any unmarried person who is 

under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for 

membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian 

tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4). The Act further provides that: 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-9-

[i]n any involuntary proceeding in a State court where the 

court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is 

involved, the party seeking the . . . termination of parental 

rights to[ ] an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian 

custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail 

with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings 

and of their right of intervention.

25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2018). No child custody proceedings may occur until at least ten 

days after the receipt of the notice, and tribes may request an additional twenty days 

to prepare for the proceedings. Id.

Since its passage, the Act has helped stem the tide of the Native American 

child welfare crisis; however, the implementation and interpretation of the Act has 

been inconsistent, and Native American children are still disproportionately likely to 

be removed from their homes and communities. See Indian Child Welfare Act 

Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg. 38,778 at 38,784 (internal citations omitted). 

In 2016, after finding that its nonbinding guidelines were “insufficient to fully 

implement Congress’s goal of nationwide protections for Indian children, parents, and 

Tribes,” the Department of the Interior issued binding regulations to promote the 

uniform application of the Act. Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg.

at 38,782 (citations omitted). Specifically, the Department considered the 

promulgation of binding regulations necessary because “[s]tate courts frequently 

characterize the guidelines as lacking the force of law and conclude that they may 

depart from the guidelines as they see fit.” Id.
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-10-

In implementing binding regulations, the Department updated existing notice 

provisions and added a new subpart I to the regulations promulgating the Act. See 25 

C.F.R. §§ 23.101–.144; see also Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg. at 

38,867–68. The new regulations did not affect termination of parental rights 

proceedings that were initiated prior to 12 December 2016 but do apply to any 

subsequent proceeding in the same matter or subsequent proceedings affecting the 

custody or placement of the same child. 25 C.F.R. § 23.143.

Under subpart I of the current federal regulations, state courts bear the burden 

of ensuring compliance with the Act. See 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a), (b); In re L.W.S., 255 

N.C. App. 296, 298 n.4, 804 S.E.2d 816, 819, n.4 (“We note that, now, it seems to be 

the case that the burden has shifted to state courts to inquire at the start of a

proceeding whether the child at issue is an Indian child . . . .”). State courts must ask 

each participant in a child custody proceeding, on the record, whether that 

participant knows or has reason to know that the matter involves an Indian child. 25 

C.F.R. § 23.107(a). The trial court must also inform the parties of their duty to notify 

the trial court if they receive subsequent information that provides reason to know 

the child is an Indian child. Id. 

If the trial court has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, but lacks

sufficient evidence to make a definitive determination, the trial court must: 

[c]onfirm, by way of a report, declaration, or testimony 

included in the record that the agency or other party used 

due diligence to identify and work with all of the Tribes of 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-11-

which there is reason to know the child may be a member

(or eligible for membership), to verify whether the child is 

in fact a member (or a biological parent is a member and 

the child is eligible for membership) . . . .

25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(1). While the trial court is seeking this additional information, 

it must treat the child as an Indian child until it determines that the child does not 

qualify for that status. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(2). State courts should seek to allow 

tribes to determine membership because “[t]he Indian Tribe of which it is believed 

the child is a member (or eligible for membership and of which the biological parent 

is a member) determines whether the child is a member of the Tribe, or whether the 

child is eligible for membership in the Tribe.” 25 C.F.R. § 23.108(a). This 

determination is committed to the sole jurisdiction of the tribe, and state courts 

cannot substitute their own determination regarding a child’s membership for that of 

the tribe. 25 C.F.R. § 23.108(b). If a tribe fails to respond to multiple written requests, 

the trial court must first seek assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 25 C.F.R. 

§ 23.1005(c). State courts can only make their own determination as to the child’s 

status if the tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs fail to respond to multiple requests.

Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings 81 Fed. Reg. at 38,806.

III. Analysis

Respondent-father asks this Court to vacate each of the judgments and orders 

entered in this case because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory notice 

requirements under the Act before terminating his parental rights. He argues that 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-12-

his statements concerning his own Indian heritage were sufficient to trigger the 

notice requirements of the Act and that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because it 

failed to comply with said requirements. Petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal,

asking this Court to hold that the post termination notices were adequate to cure the 

trial court’s failure to provide notice in compliance with the Act, rendering moot

respondent-father’s arguments on appeal.

8 We conclude that the post termination 

notices failed to comply with the Act and therefore cannot cure the trial court’s error. 

Here, the record shows that the trial court had reason to know that an Indian 

child might be involved. In eight separate filings, DSS indicated in its court reports 

that respondent-father indicated that he had Cherokee Indian heritage. Respondentfather also raised his Indian heritage during a Child and Family Team Meeting, and 

his comments were included in a report filed by DSS with the trial court. Although 

the trial court had reason to know that an Indian child might be involved in these 

proceedings, the trial court failed to readdress its initial finding that the Act did not 

apply and failed to ensure that any Cherokee tribes were actually notified. 

The trial court was required to ask each participant in the proceeding, on the 

record, whether that participant knows or has reason to know that the matter 

 

8 Although these notices and findings by the trial court were not in the record, this 

Court takes judicial notice of the actions by both DSS and the trial court during the post

termination hearings. See State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. S. Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 289 N.C. 

286, 287, 221 S.E.2d 322, 324 (1976) (“Consideration of matters outside the record is 

especially appropriate where it would disclose that the question presented has become moot, 

or academic, and therefore neither of the litigants has any real interest in supplementing the 

record.”).
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-13-

involves an Indian child and inform them of their duty to inform the trial court if they 

learn any subsequent information that provides a reason to know that an Indian child 

is involved. See 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a).9 The party seeking the termination of parental 

rights, DSS, was required to notify the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with 

return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of the tribe’s right to 

intervene. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a). 

Here, there is no evidence in the record that the trial court inquired at the 

beginning of the proceeding whether any participant knew or had reason to know 

that an Indian child was involved or informed the participants of their continuing 

duty to provide the trial court with such information. In an attempt to rectify its 

failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Act, Mecklenburg County 

Department of Social Services Youth and Family Services sent a notice, with return 

receipt requested, on 1 August 2019 to each federally-recognized Cherokee tribe10: 

the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the Cherokee Nation and the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Each notice was also sent to the appropriate 

regional director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Included with each notice was a copy 

of the juvenile petition and nonsecure custody order filed 2 January 2018. On 9 

 

9 Because the proceedings stemming from the 2 January 2018 juvenile petition began 

after 12 December 2016, the trial court was required to follow the binding federal regulations 

in addition to the statutory provisions of the Act.

10 See Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive Services from the United 

States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 85 Fed. Reg. 5,462 (Jan. 30, 2020).
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-14-

August 2019, a representative of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians tribes 

responded, indicating that the juveniles were neither registered members nor eligible 

to register as a member of the tribe. On 13 November 2019, a representative of the 

Cherokee Nation tribe responded, indicating that the juveniles were not “Indian 

children” as defined in the Act. Both tribes indicated they did not have the legal right 

to intervene in the matters. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians tribe 

received the notice on 5 August 2019 and had not responded as of the 18 February 

2020 post termination of parental rights hearing. 

Although the trial court attempted to comply with the Act by sending notices 

to these tribes after respondent-father appealed to this Court, the notices failed to 

include all necessary information as required under 25 U.S.C. § 1912 and 25 C.F.R. 

§ 23.111(d). The notices did not contain any language informing the tribes of their

right to intervene in the proceedings, and we find no other evidence in the record that 

these tribes were notified of their right of intervention, as mandated in 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1912(a).

We further conclude that the notices were legally insufficient because they 

failed to contain all necessary information. Pursuant to binding federal regulations, 

notices must also include the following information: 

(1) [T]he child’s name, birthdate, and birthplace; 

(2) [A]ll names known (including maiden, married, and 

former names and aliases) of the parents, the parents’ 

birthdates and birthplaces, and Tribal enrollment numbers 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-15-

if known; 

(3) [I]f known, the names, birthdates, birthplaces, and 

Tribal enrollment information of other direct lineal 

ancestors of the child, such as grandparents; 

(4) [T]he name of each Indian Tribe in which the child is a 

member (or may be eligible for membership if a biological 

parent is a member); [and]

(5) [A] copy of the petition, complaint, or other document 

by which the child-custody proceeding was initiated and, if 

a hearing has been scheduled, information on the date, 

time, and location of the hearing[.]

25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(1)–(5). Notices must also include statements setting out the 

following: 

(i) [T]he name of the petitioner and the name and address 

of petitioner’s attorney.

(ii) [T]he right of any parent or Indian custodian of the 

child, if not already a party to the child-custody proceeding, 

to intervene in the proceedings.

(iii) [T]he Indian Tribe’s right to intervene at any time in a 

State-court proceeding for the foster-care placement of or 

termination of parental rights to an Indian child.

(iv) [T]hat, if the child’s parent or Indian custodian is 

unable to afford counsel based on a determination of 

indigency by the court, the parent or Indian custodian has 

the right to court-appointed counsel.

(v) [T]he right to be granted, upon request, up to 20 

additional days to prepare for the child-custody 

proceedings.

(vi) [T]he right of the parent or Indian custodian and the 

Indian child’s Tribe to petition the court for transfer of the 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-16-

foster-care placement or termination-of-parental rights 

proceeding to Tribal court as provided by 25 U.S.C. § 1911 

and § 23.115.

(vii) [T]he mailing addresses and telephone numbers of the 

court and information related to all parties to the childcustody proceeding and individuals notified under this 

section.

(viii) the potential legal consequences of the child-custody 

proceedings on the future parental and custodial rights of 

the parent or Indian custodian.

(ix) that all parties notified must keep confidential the 

information contained in the notice and the notice should 

not be handled by anyone not needing the information to 

exercise rights under [the Act]. 

25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(6)(i)–(ix). Upon careful review of the notices sent, we observe

that the notices also failed to fully comply with these regulations. 

The notices failed to include: (1) the children’s birthplaces, as required by 25 

C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(1); (2) notice of the tribe’s right to intervene, as required by 25 

C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(6)(iii); (3) notice of the tribe’s right to request an additional twenty 

days to prepare for the hearing, as required by 25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(6)(v); and (4) 

notice of the tribe’s right to petition for a transfer of the proceeding to tribal court, as 

required by 25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d)(6)(vi). 

Each of the three notices sent by DSS failed to comply with the Act and were 

not sent in a timely manner. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Cherokee 

Nation tribes responded to their respective notices, indicating that Robert and Eric 

were not “Indian children” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4). Based on these 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-17-

responses, the trial court no longer had reason to know that Eric and Robert might

be Indian children due to their affiliation with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

or Cherokee Nation tribes. 

However, the trial court still had reason to know that Robert and Eric might

be Indian children due to their affiliation with the United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians tribe. The only notice that the tribe received was legally insufficient

and it failed to comply with the Act because it did not contain all information required 

in 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d). Assuming, arguendo, that the notice 

was legally sufficient, the trial court still erred by finding that the Act did not apply 

because it failed to ensure that DSS used due diligence when contacting all three 

tribes. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(1). Tribes, not trial courts, determine whether a child is

a member or is eligible for membership, and therefore considered an Indian child 

under the Act. 25 C.F.R. § 23.108. If a tribe fails to respond, the trial court must seek 

assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to making its own independent 

determination. 25 C.F.R. § 23.105(c). This is because “[t]he State court may not 

substitute its own determination regarding a child’s membership in a Tribe, a child’s 

eligibility for membership in a Tribe, or a parent’s membership in a Tribe.” 25 C.F.R. 

§ 23.108(b). 

We therefore conclude that the post termination notice sent to the Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee Indians tribe did not cure the trial court’s failure to comply with 

the Act prior to terminating respondent-father’s parental rights.
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Opinion of the Court

-18-

IV. Conclusion

The order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights is reversed. We 

remand this matter to the trial court to issue an order requiring that a notice be sent 

to the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians tribe by DSS that fully complies with the 

requirements of 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.111. If the Keetoowah Band 

of Cherokee Indians tribe indicates that the children are not Indian children 

pursuant to the Act, the trial court shall reaffirm the order terminating respondentfather’s parental rights. In the event that the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee tribe 

indicates that the children are Indian children pursuant to the Act, the trial court 

shall proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Justice DAVIS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. 
Justice NEWBY dissenting.

The ultimate question presented in this case is whether each child involved in 

this termination proceeding is an “Indian child” as defined by the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA). The specific question is whether the appropriate Indian tribes 

were notified of the allegation that the children were potentially of Indian heritage. 

While the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family 

Services (YFS) and the trial court did not timely investigate whether the ICWA 

applied, during post-termination proceedings YFS did provide notice to the three 

relevant Indian tribes and the respective directors of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The notices were sent with return receipts requested, and all necessary entities 

received notification. Two tribes responded that the children were not eligible for

membership. Although in receipt of the notification, the third tribe did not respond 

to the notice over a period of nearly seven months. The third tribe was notified 

through two separate avenues, to the tribe directly and to the regional director of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Similarly, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not respond. 

This information was presented to the trial court, and after evaluating all the 

evidence, it determined that the children are not Indian children. This determination 

rendered the ICWA inapplicable since the trial court had no reason to believe that 

the children were Indian children based on the tribes’ responses, or lack thereof. Even 

if the notices to the tribes could have provided additional information about the tribes’ 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-2-

respective rights in the proceedings, that information is unnecessary unless the 

children are Indian children. As such, and because the trial court has properly made 

the determination that the ICWA does not apply here, the appeal should be dismissed 

as moot. 

Under North Carolina law the guiding principle in termination of parental 

rights cases is the best interests of the child. Children are best served with timely 

proceedings and placements in permanent homes. As a result of the majority’s 

decision, the children in this case must endure months of further uncertainty waiting 

for the last tribe to respond, if it will. If the children are Indian children, the last tribe 

would have responded already. Despite the seeming lack of interest by the third tribe 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the majority places the burden of obtaining a 

response from the tribe on the trial court and YFS. The majority is also critical of the 

notice provided, saying that additional information should have been included. The 

majority assumes that Indian tribes are not motivated to respond if the research 

reveals the children’s Indian heritage, or that tribes do not understand their rights. 

It uses these assumptions to keep these children embroiled in a continued, lengthy 

termination proceeding. Because the majority improperly elevates the form of the 

statutory notice requirements over the substance of actual notice, thereby 

undermining the best interests of the children, I respectfully dissent.

The children were initially placed with YFS in 2015, and after a series of 

proceedings in which the children’s mother was awarded custody, she relinquished 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-3-

her rights to the children in 2018. Ultimately, on 15 March 2019 the trial court 

terminated respondent’s parental rights. 

Though respondent informed YFS that he was “affiliated with the Cherokee 

Indian tribe,” YFS did not investigate because it believed that respondent had not 

provided the information necessary to require further inquiry into the matter. On 1 

August 2019, YFS sent notices to three Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, with return receipts requested as required by statute, informing them that 

the children were currently involved in dependency actions and that the children may 

be eligible for enrollment in one of the tribes. Upon receipt of the notice, two of the 

tribes responded that the children were not eligible for enrollment; as such, the tribes 

noted that they were therefore not legally able to intervene. The third tribe, the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, signed the return receipt indicating 

that they received notice in August of 2019, but the tribe did not respond, and still 

has not responded, to the notice. The Bureau of Indian Affairs affiliated with the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians was also served and did not respond. 

The trial court conducted two post-termination hearings. At the second hearing 

on 18 February 2020, based on the information set forth above, the trial court 

determined that the ICWA does not apply. 

The ICWA provides that: 

In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the 

court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is 

involved, the party seeking the . . . termination of parental 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-4-

rights to[ ] an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian 

custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail 

with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings 

and their right of intervention. 

25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2018). By its terms, this provision only applies when the court 

knows or should know that an Indian child as defined by the ICWA may be involved. 

According to the ICWA, an Indian child is “any unmarried person who is under age 

eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership 

in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1903(4) (2018).

In accordance with the regulations promulgated under the ICWA, state courts 

must generally ask parties involved whether the children at issue are Indian 

children. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a) (2019). If the trial court has reason to suspect the 

children are Indian children through any of the avenues recognized in 25 C.F.R. 

§ 23.107(c), including an allegation of Indian heritage, then the trial court must 

confirm that the relevant state agency or other party involved in the proceeding has 

sought a determination of the children’s tribal membership status by the appropriate 

Indian tribe or tribes. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(1). The trial court should treat a child as 

an Indian child unless it is determined that the child does not meet the “Indian child” 

definition. 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(2). Ultimately, “[s]tate courts have discretion as to 

when and how to make this determination.” Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 

81 Fed. Reg. 38,778, 38,806 (June 14, 2016) (to be codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 23). 

Moreover, the regulations provide a ten-day waiting period for termination 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-5-

proceedings to occur once a tribe has received notice, and the impacted tribe may 

request up to twenty days to prepare for the proceeding if an Indian child is in fact 

involved. 25 C.F.R. § 23.112 (2019). If the trial court determines that the children 

involved are not Indian children, then the ICWA does not apply. 25 C.F.R. 

§ 23.107(b)(2).

These regulations place the burden on the trial court and Department of Social 

Services to determine whether a child is an Indian child when they have notice that 

an Indian child may be involved in the proceeding. While respondent here merely 

informed YFS that he had Cherokee Indian heritage, this information was sufficient 

to put the trial court and YFS on notice that the ICWA may apply. Therefore, the 

burden was on the trial court and YFS to investigate as soon as respondent provided 

this information.

While notice should have been provided earlier in the proceeding, YFS did 

ultimately provide notice to the three relevant Cherokee Indian tribes. The evidence 

arising from the notices was sufficient to allow the trial court to determine that the 

ICWA is inapplicable. The purpose of the ICWA is to notify the Indian tribes that a 

potential Indian child is involved in the state proceeding, not to delay termination 

proceedings based on unsubstantiated allegations of Indian heritage. Given the 

responses from two tribes, and the third tribe’s failure to respond in the nearly seven 

months after it received notice, the trial court properly determined that the ICWA is 

inapplicable. 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-6-

It appears that the majority would put the termination proceeding on hold 

awaiting an actual response from the third tribe which failed to respond even though 

it indisputably received notice. It seems this issue has already caused a significant 

delay and that further delay will now occur. Our case law has supported the idea that 

the best interests of the child should be the lodestar in juvenile proceedings. See In 

re T.H.T., 362 N.C. 446, 448, 665 S.E.2d 54, 56 (2008) (recognizing the importance of 

effectuating a child’s best interests and the need for children to be timely placed in a 

permanent home); id. at 450, 665 S.E.2d at 57 (stating that, because a child’s 

perception of time differs from that of an adult, “[t]he importance of timely resolution 

of cases involving the welfare of children cannot be overstated”); see also N.C.G.S. § 

7B-100(5) (2019). Also, this Court has consistently recognized that form should not 

be elevated over substance. See, e.g., In re A.P., 371 N.C. 14, 19–22, 812 S.E.2d 840, 

844–45 (2018) (reading the juvenile code holistically to determine that, despite 

statutory language to the contrary, the legislature did not intend to limit the proper 

petitioner in a juvenile adjudication to a single individual within a department of 

social services, as a determination to the contrary would not achieve the best interests 

of the child); In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101, 111–12, 772 S.E.2d 451, 458 (2015) 

(concluding that, though the trial court could have conducted an inquiry into 

respondent’s competence at trial in light of her mental health conditions, the trial 

court had a reasonable basis for concluding that respondent was capable of 

participating in the proceeding since its conclusion rested on other legitimate 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-7-

considerations); In re J.T., 363 N.C. 1, 672 S.E.2d 17 (2009) (concluding that it would 

be unnecessary to address deficiencies in the summons, that the juveniles were not 

named in the petition as respondents nor was the summons served on a GAL, because 

the GAL fully participated in the proceedings despite any deficiency). Because the 

ultimate goal of juvenile proceedings is to determine and effectuate the best interests 

of the child, the proceedings in this case should not be invalidated over technical 

deficiencies. 

Moreover, the majority seems to say that any allegation of Indian heritage, 

even one unsupported by anything more than a statement that a party has Indian 

heritage, is sufficient to halt all child proceedings so long as a tribe does not respond. 

This impractical approach does not appear to be the intent of the ICWA, nor is it 

consistent with our case law and statutes recognizing the paramount interest being 

the best interests of the child, which favors timely resolution of these already lengthy 

proceedings. 

Instead of asking if the trial court had evidence that the unresponsive tribe 

received notice about the children and the state court proceeding, the majority 

renders the notice deficient because, in addition to the fact that the tribe failed to 

respond, the notice itself did not include information such as the children’s birthplace 

or an explicit statement that the tribe had a right to intervene. The majority fails to 

indicate why these technical deficiencies had any impact on the notice here since the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians failed to respond well beyond the time 
IN RE E.J.B., R.S.B.

Newby, J., dissenting

-8-

recognized in the federal regulations. As previously mentioned, two of the tribes who 

were given notice indicated a clear understanding of their rights, explicitly stating 

that the ineligibility meant they could not intervene in the proceeding. Moreover, 

those tribes were able to establish that the children were not eligible for membership 

in their tribes without being provided with the children’s birthplace. Therefore, 

requiring additional notices to be sent in this case will only serve to delay the 

proceeding, which in turn delays permanency for the children. 

In sum, the majority elevates form over substance, needlessly delaying 

indefinitely the permanency that would be in the children’s best interests. Because 

the Indian tribes were all notified and the trial court, in consideration of the evidence, 

determined that the ICWA is inapplicable, this appeal should be dismissed as moot. 

I respectfully dissent.