1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: JU N E 2 2, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 409 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, ex rel ., 6 CHILD REN , Y OUT H A ND FA MILIES 7 DEPARTMENT, 8 Petitioner-Appellee, 9 v

. 10 CASEY J., 11 Re spon de nt- Appe llant, 12 IN TH E MATTE R OF TICH ELL E J ., 13 RAZ IE L J ., and CALE B J ., 14 Ch ildre n. 15 16 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 17 Wi lli am E. P ar na ll, D ist ri ctJu dg e 18 Ch ildre n, Y outh & F am ili es D ep ar tm en t 19 Charles E . N eelley , Jr ., Chief Children’ s Court Attorney 20 Rebecc a J. Liggett, A ssistant Children’ s Court Attorney 21 San ta Fe, NM 22 for Appellee1 Ca se y

Jim 2 Farm in gt on , NM 3 Pr o S e Appe llant 4 W

. K ar enCantr el l 5 Pl aci ta s, NM 6 Guar dian Ad L item1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} Ca se y

J. ( Fa the r) appe al s th e te rm ina tio n of his pare nta l rig hts to T

. J. , R. J. , a nd 4 C. J. ( Ch ildre n) not

f or pur pose s of r es tor ing his pa re nta l r igh ts i n th e Ch ildre n, but 5 ra the r to r equir e the Ch ildre n, Y outh a nd F am ili es D ep ar tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t) to 6 place Children with a specific relative, or alternatively any interested rela tive. Fa ther 7 argues that the De partm ent failed to c om ply with Ne w Mexico’ s Abuse and Neglect 8 A ct , NMSA 1978, §§ 3 2A -4 -1 to -3 4 ( 1993 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2014 ), a nd the 9 federa l Indian Chi l d Welfare A ct (the IC W A) , 25 U .S .C. §§ 190 1 to 19 63 (2013 ), 10 w ithr eg ar d to the pla ce m en t of Chi ldr en . Fa the r al so ar gue s th at he w as de nie d du e 1 1 pr o c e s s a s w e l l a s a f a i r a n d i m

p a rt i a l t e rm i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g . W e h o l dtha t t he 12 De partm ent’ s placem ent of Ch i l d ren com plied with the state and federa l 13 re q u i re m en ts. A s to the term ination proceedings, w e hold that Father w as aff orded 14 du e p ro ces s, and was no t dep riv ed of fai r an d im pa rti al pr oc eed in gs . Acco rd in gl y , we 1 5 a f f i rm. 16 BACKGRO UND 17 { 2} The Depa rtment f il eda ne gl ect /a b u s e p et it io n a ga in st Fat he r an d An dr ea T. 18 (M ot he r) r egarding Children. T he De partm ent tookChildren into cust ody in February 19 2011 due to ongo ing c onc er ns re la te d to e ac h pare nt’ s is sue s w ithsub stanc e ab use2

1 and dom estic violence. A t the tim e Children w ere taken into cus tody, Father w as 2 incarce rated. The district court held a custod y hearing on March 1, 2011. T he district 3 co urt f oun d th at the I CWA appl ie d be ca use F athe r, Mo the r, a nd C hil dr ena re a ll 4 re gis te re d m em

be rs of the N av aj o N at ion

. 5 { 3} A t the a dj udi ca tor y /di spos iti ona l hear ing on Apr il 6, 201 1, both F athe r an d 6 Mother ente re d pl ea s of no c ont es t t o th e al le ga tio ns i n th e ne gle ct/a buse pe tit ion , 7 pur suant t o S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 2)

. T he c ourt a dopt ed tr ea tm en t pl an s f or both 8 pa re nts , de sig ne d to a ddr es s the dom es tic vio le nc e and sub stanc e ab use iss ue s. T he 9 tr ea tm en t pl an s a lso r equir ed sup er vis ed vis ita tio n and r eg ular co m m uni ca tio n w ith 10 the D ep ar

tm en t. 11 { 4} Fath e r w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d sp or a di c a l l y t hr ou gh ou t t he pe nd e nc y of t he case. 12 Fath er attended m ost of the m onth ly m eetings with the Depar tm ent perm anency 13 planni ng w orke r w he n he w as not inc ar ce ra te d, but did not co m ple te pa ren ti ng 14 tr ai nin g, dom es tic vio le nc e or sub stanc e ab use c ouns el ing , and was tw ice discharged 15 fo r nonc om

pli an ce . Fathe r w as inc onsi ste nt i n hi s vi sit s w ithCh ildre n and h is l as t 16 vis it w ith Ch ildre n wa s June 29, 2012

. A ft er the June 29, 201 2 vi sit , F athe r ca lle d f or 17 a fe w w eeks with excuses for m issin g visits and after that the Depar tm ent perm anency 18 planni ng w orke r did

not he ar f ro m F athe r ag ai n.3

1 { 5} On January 31, 2013 , the De partm ent filed a m otion for term ination of parental 2 ri ght s of Moth er an d Fa the r, both m em be rs of the N av aj o Na tio n. O n Apr il 24, 201 3, 3 Mothe r vol unt ar ily

r el inquis he d he r pa re nta l r igh ts. T he c as e pr oc ee de d to tr ia l. 4 Fa the r w as pr es en t, but did not ch al le nge the ev ide nc e tha t he ha d fa ile d to part ic ipa te 5 in h is tre atm en t pl ana nd tha t he ha d a ba ndo ne d Ch il dr en . F athe r did c ha lle nge the 6 co m pl ia nc e o f Ch il dr en ’s fos te r pl acements wit h t he req ui rem en ts of t he ICWA. 7 H ow ev er , Fa the r ar gue d that the D ep ar tm en t’ s fa ilure to pla ce Ch ildre n a cc or din g to 8 the I CWA ’ s pl ac em en t pr ef er en ce s c onst itu te d a fai lu re to m ak e ac tiv e ef fo rt s to 9 pr ev en t t he bre akup of t he Ind ia n fa m il y , as re qu ire d b y th e ICWA. 10 { 6} At the c onclusi on of the term ination of parental r ights trial, the d i s t rict cou rt 11 an noun ce d it s de ci sio n in dic at ing it w as gr an tin g th e Depar tm en t’ s m oti on t o 12 term inate Father’ s parental rights. Fa ther filed a m o t i o n for re consideration, which 13 w as he ar d onA ugus t 1, 20 13 . On O ct obe r 29, 201 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d a 14 j udgm en t t er

m ina tin g F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts t o C hil dr en . T his appe al f oll ow ed

. 15 DISC US SION 16 { 7} Fa the r m ak es anum be r of a rg um en ts i n su

ppor t of r ev ers al f

or pur pose s of 17 m andating a relative placem ent for Children and not the restorati o n of his parental 18 rights. Th e m aj ority

of these ar gum ents relate to the fa ct that Children wer e never 19 placed in foster car e w ith relati ves, m em bers of the N avaj o Nation, or other Indian4

1 fam ili es . F athe r ar gue s th at the D ep ar

tm en t f ai le d to m ak e activ e efforts to pr ev en t 2 the br eakup of

the I ndi anf

am ily a nd t o c om

ply w iththe r el ative pla ce m en t 3 prefer ences u n der the IC W A and the NewMexico Abuse and N eglect A ct. Father 4 al so c ont en ds tha t i n th e ab se nc e of f ull c om pli an ce w iththe pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s, 5 he was d en ie d d ue pro ces s o f la w. 6 { 8} T o th e ex te nt tha t any of F athe r’ s c la im s r el ate to the c ur re nt p la ce m en t of 7 Ch ildre n, w e de cl ine to ad dr es s th em . F athe r m ay not ch al le nge th e pla ce m en t of 8 Ch il dr en aft er t he ter m in at io n. See § 32A-4-29(L) (“ A j udgm ent of the court 9 term inating parental right s d i v es ts the parent of all legal rights and privileges.”). 10 A cc or din gly , our

a na ly sis of

F athe r’ s c la im s is li m ite d to the f ost er c ar e pla ce m en t 11 of Ch il dr en pri orto th e te rm in at io n o f Fat he r’s pa ren ta l ri gh ts

. 12 Ch ildren’ s Placem ent Un der the ICWAand t he Ne w Mexico Ab use and N eglect 13 Ac t 14 { 9} Interpreta tion o f the IC W A an d the NewMexico Abuse and N eglect A ct 15 pr es en t s q u e st io ns of l aw th atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Sta te e x re l. Ch ild

re n, Youth & 16 Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ma rs al ee P. , 20 1 3 -N M CA -0 6 2 , ¶ 1 2 , 30 2 P. 3 d7 6 1 . “ [T h e] I CWA 17 is a re m ed ia l sta tut e in tha t it wa s ena ct ed to ste m the a larm ing ly

hig h pe rc en ta ge of 18 In dian f

am ili es be ing se pa ra te d by r em ova l of

c hil dr enthr oughc ust ody 19 pr oc ee din gs[ , ] ” an d w e the re fo re c onstru e it lib erall y in or de r to e ff ec tua te it s 20 pu rp os e. State ex rel. Chi ldren, Y outh & Fam ilies De

p’t v. Marlene C. , 2011-NMS C-5

1 005, ¶ 17, 149 N

. M. 315 , 248 P

. 3d 8 63 ( int er na l qu ot at ionm ar

ks and c ita tio n 2 om itted). 3 { 10} The I CWA w as enacted to address the consequences of abusive child welfar e 4 pr ac tic es tha t se pa rat ed In dian c hil dr enf ro m the ir f am ili es a nd tri be s th ro ugh 5 ad op ti on or f

os te r car e p la cem en t, u su al ly i n n on -In di an ho m es . M iss

. B and of 6 Ch oc tawI

ndi ans v. H

oly fie ld , 490 U

. S. 30, 32- 33 (19 89)

. T he sta te d purp ose of the 7 IC W A is 8 to p ro te ct

the be st i nte re sts of

I ndi anc hil dr ena nd t o prom ote the 9 sta

bil ity a nd s ec ur ity

of In dian tr ibe s an d fam ili es by the e sta bli shm en t 10 of m ini m

um F ed er al standard s f

or the r em ova l of

I ndi anc hil dr enf

ro m 11 th ei r fam ili es a nd the pla ce m en t of suc h c hil dr enin fo ste r or a dopt ive 12 hom es w hic h w ill r ef le ct the uni que va lue s of

I ndi anc ult

ur e, a nd b y 13 pr ovi din g fo r as sis tanc e to In dian tr ibe s in the ope ra tio n of ch il d and 14 fam il y

ser vi ce p ro gr am s. 15 25 U.S.C. § 19 02. T he ove rarc hin g c onc er n of Co ngr es s and the pr opon en ts o f the 16 ICWA, wa s the m aintenance of the fam ily and tribal relationship s existin g in Indian 17 ho m es . H

oly fie ld , 49 0 U.S. at 37

. 18 One of the m o s t s erious failings of the present sy stem is that Indian 19 ch ildre n are r em ove d f ro m the c ust ody

of the ir na tur al pare nts by 20 nontri ba l go ve rn m en t auth or iti es w ho h av e no b as is fo r int el lig en tly 21 evaluating th e cultural and s ocial prem ises und erly ing Indian h om e life 22 an d c hil dr eari ng. Many of the ind ivi dua ls who d ec ide the f at e of our 23 ch ildre n are a t be st i gnor an t of our c ult ur al va lue s, a nd a t w or st 24 co nte m

ptf ul of the In dian w ay

a nd c onvi nc ed

tha t r em ova l, usu al ly

to a 25 no n- In di an ho us eh ol d o r in st it ut io n, ca n o nl y be ne fit an Ind ia n c hi ld

.6

1 Id

. at 3 4 -3 5 (i n t er n al qu o t at i o n m ar k s an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Att h e c o re o f t h e I CWA 2 is the tribal interest in the im pact that t h e l ar g e num

bers of adoption s of Indian 3 ch il dr en by non -In di an s h av e o n t he t rib es th em se lv es . Id

. at 4 9 -5 2 . Th e I CWA 4 “ re co gni ze s th at

the tr ibe ha s an in te re st in the c hil d w hic h is dis tin ct f ro m but on a 5 parity with the interest of the par ents.” Id

. a t 52 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n 6 om itted). 7 { 11} T he ICWA es ta bli she s f ed er al standard s f

or sta te -c ourt c hil d c ust ody 8 pr oc eed in g s i nv ol vi ng Ind ia n c hi ld ren . Id

. at 3 6 -3 7 . As re l ev an th er e, t h e I CWA 9 conditi ons involun tary term ination of parental r ights with re spect to Indian child ren 10 on a sh owing that active efforts have been m ade to prevent the “ breakup of the Indian 11 fam ily , ” 25 U

. S. C. § 1912( d) ; and p ro vid es pr ef er en ce s f or the f ost er c ar e pla ce m en t 12 of Indian children with a m em ber of the I ndian child’ s extended fam ily ; a foster c are 13 hom e licensed, approved and sp ecified by the In d i an ch i l d’ s tribe; an Indian foster 14 care hom e lic en se d or ap pr ove d by an au tho ri ze d no n- In dian li ce nsi ng a uth or ity ; or 15 an institu tion for children approved b y the Indian child’s tribe or operated b y

an 16 In dian or ganiz at iontha t ha s apr ogr am sui ta ble to m ee t the I ndi anc hil d’ s ne ed s. 17 25 U

. S. C. § 1915( b)

. T he N ew Me xic o Abu se an d Ne gle ct A ct ha s in co rp or at ed

the 18 ICWA’ s p la cem en t p refe ren ces . See NMS A 1978, § 32A-4-9( A) (1993).7

1 A ct ive Ef

fo rt s D es ign ed t o P re ve ntt he Br ea kup of t he In di an F am ily 2 { 12} Fa the r co nte nds tha t the D ep ar tm en t did not m ak e ac tiv e ef fo rt s to pr ev en t the 3 br eakup of

his f am ily be ca use Ch ildre n w er e not

pla ce d w ithr el at ive s and b ec au se 4 Ch ildre n w er e not

a lw ay s pl ac ed

tog ethe r in o ne f

ost er ho m e. W e unde rs tand the 5 basis of Father’ s argum ent t o be the requirem ents for preser vation o f the Indian 6 fam ily as set forth in 25 U. S. C. § 191 2(d). 7 { 13} Se ct ion191 2( d) of the I CWA pr ovi de s th at aparty se ek in g to te rm ina te 8 pa re nta l r igh ts to an I ndi anc hil d un de r sta te law “ sha ll sa tis fy the c ourt tha t a ct ive 9 e f f o rt s h a v e b e e n ma d e t o p r o v i d e r e me d i a l s e rv i c e s a n dr e h ab i l i t a t i v e p r o g r a ms 10 de sig ne d to pr ev en t the br eakup of the In dian f

am ily a nd tha t the se e ff

orts h av e 11 proved un successful.” A dopt iv e Co upl e v. B abyG irl , ___ U

. S. ___ , ___ , 13 3 S. Ct

. 12 2552 , 2562 (2 013) (e m pha sis , int er

na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). E ff orts 13 to p ro vid e re m ed ia l se rv ic es und er thi s se ct ion ar e int en de d to “ al le via te the ne ed to 14 rem ove the Indian child from his or her parents or Indian cus todians .” Id

. a t 25 63 15 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 16 { 14} Se ct ion191 2( d) of the IC W A shou ld be re ad in har m ony w ith“ § 19 12( e) a nd 17 § 191 2(f), both o f w hich condi tion th e outc o m e o f proceeding s on the m erits of an 18 Indian ch i l d ’s ‘ continu ed custody ’ with his parent.” A dopt iv e Co upl e , 133 S. Ct. at 19 2563

. T hus, 25 U

. S. C. § 19 12 (d ) re qui re s th at I ndi anpare nts be “ pr ovi de d w ith8

1 ac ce ss t o r em ed ia l se rv ic es a nd re habil ita tiv e pr ogr am s . . . so tha t the ir c ust ody m igh t 2 be c ont inu ed

in a w ay

tha t a voi ds f

ost er -c ar e pla ce m en t un de r § 19 12 (e ) or 3 term ination of parental r ights under § 191 2(f). ” A dopt iv e Co upl e , 133 S

. Ct

. a t 25 63 4 (inter na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). “ [T ] he pr ovi sio n of r em ed ia l se rv ic es a nd 5 re habil ita ti ve progr am s un de r § 19 12( d) sup ports the c ont inu ed c ust ody tha t i s 6 protected by § 191 2(e) and § 19 12(f). ” A dopt iv e Co upl e , 133 S. Ct. at 2563 (internal 7 quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). I t do es not

appl y to fa ci lit at e the pla ce m en t of the c hil d in 8 co m pl ia nc e wit h th e pl acement pre fere nc es li st ed in § 1 91 5. A dopt iv e Co upl e , 133 S. 9 Ct

. a t 25 58. 10 { 15} H er e, F athe r’ s arg um en t i s f o c u s e d on C hil dr en ’ s f

ost er pla ce m en ts thr ough out 11 the case, not on the De partm ent’ s efforts to pre vent a disrupti on in cust ody or parental 12 ri ght s a s c ont em

pla te d by 25 U

. S. C. § 19 15( d)

. F athe r doe s no t ad dr es s the 13 D epart m en t’ s e ff

orts t o pr ovi de him

w ithr em ed ia l se rv ic es a nd r eh ab ili ta tiv e 14 pr ogr am s pr ior

to the r em ova l of

Ch ildre n fr om the hom e, or the D ep ar

tm en t’ s e ff

orts 15 to e nga ge him

in suc h se rv ic es an d pr ogr am s thr ough his tr ea tm en t plan. A s ar es ult , 16 whether the De partm ent m ade active efforts to prevent the breakup of t h e I n dian 17 fam il y , a s r e q ui red by 25 U.S.C. § 19 12 (d ), is no t an is su e in th is ap pe al

. See In re 18 D oe , 198 2- N MS C- 099, ¶ 3, 98 N. M. 540 , 650 P

. 2d 8 24 ( re co gni zi ng tha t a ppe lla te 19 co urts s houl d no t r ea chis su es no t ra ise d by the pa rt ie s)

. O ur

r el ev an t i nqui ry

is9

1 w he the r th e IC W A pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s w er e fo llo w ed , a nd i f not , w he the r good 2 c au s e e x i s t e dt o d e v i a t e f r o m t h e m. 3 The IC WA P lacem ent Pr efer ence s 4 { 16} T he ICWA and the N ewMe xic o Abuse a nd N eg le ct A ct spe ci fy tha t, abse nt 5 good c au se to the c ontrary , f

ost er c ar e pla ce m en t sh al l be w ith : “ [( 1) ] am em be r of 6 the I ndi anc hil d’ s e xte nde d f am ily ; [ (2 )] af

ost er hom e li cens ed , appr ove d, or 7 specified by the Indian c hild’s tribe; [ (3)] an Indian foster hom e licensed or approved 8 by an authorized non-Indian licensi ng autho rity; o r [( 4 )] an institu tion for [the] 9 children approved byan Indian tr ibe or operated by an Indian organization which has 10 a program

suitable to m eet the Indian child’ s needs.” See 2 5 U.S .C. § 1915 (b); 11 Section 32A-4-9(A ). The party seeking to dev i ate fr om

the placem ent prefer ences 12 be ar s th e bur de n of

e sta blishi ng the e xis te nc e of goo d c au se to do s o. Bure auof 13 In dian A ff

ai rs , G uid el ine s f

or S ta te Co urts; I ndi anCh ild Cu sto dy P ro ce ed ing s, 44 14 Fe d. Re g. 6758 4, 6759 4 (N ov. 26, 1979 ). In de te rm ini ng w he the r good c au se e xis ts 15 fo r de via tin g f

ro m the pla ce m en t pr ef

er en ce s, a co urt i s r equir ed to ex am ine the 16 re as ons fo r de vi at io n in li ght of “ the pr ev ai lin g so ci al a nd c ult ur al standard s of

the 17 Indian comm

unity .” 25 U.S .C

. § 1 915(d). T he rec ently issued Bureau of Indian 18 A ff ai rs G uid el ine s ( BI A G uid el ine s) r ec ogni ze tha t an y pa rty m ay ra ise the iss ue of10

1 w he the r good

c au se not

to fo llo w the IC W A pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s e xis ts. 80 Fe d. 2 Reg. 1015 0, § F( 4) (Fe bruary 25, 2015). 3 { 17} In t h i s ca s e, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n dt h at g o o d ca u s e t o d ev i at e f

ro m t h e I CWA 4 pla ce m en t pr ef

er en ce s ex ist ed , be y ond a re as ona ble doub t. T his standard

appl ie s to 5 te rm in at io n of pare nt al rig ht s un de rt h e I C WA

. See 25 U.S.C. § 1 91 2( f) (“No 6 term ination of parental rights m ay be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a 7 de te rm ina tio n, su

p p o r t e d b y e vid en ce be y ond a re as ona ble doubt i nc lud ing te sti m ony 8 of qua lif ie d e xpe rt w itn es se s, tha t the co nti nue d cu sto dy of the ch ild by the pa re nt o r 9 In dian c ust odi anis lik el y to res ul t in s er iou s e m oti ona l or phy sic al da m ag e to the 10 ch ild

. ”)

. H ow ev er , ne ith er 25 U

. S. C. § 1915( b) nor

S ec tio n 32 A -4 -9 (A ) of

the Abuse 11 an d N eg le ct A ct ide nti fy a standard of pr oof fo r the good ca use ex ce pt io n t o the 12 p l ac ement p refe rences identified in the statute. W e ar e also unawar e of any Ne w 13 Me xic o c as e law tha t ha s e sta bli she d a st an da rd as it

r el at es to the goo d c au se 14 ex ce pti on. W e nee d no t de ci de on a standard f or tw o r ea sons . F ir st, the iss ue is not 15 sq ua rel y be fo re u s as ne it he r pa rty has rai se d t he is su e. Se e In re D oe , 1982-NMS C16 099, ¶ 3 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t appe lla te co urts shou ld not re ac h issue s not ra ise d by the 1 7 p ar t i es )

. S e co n d , u n d ert h e f ac t s o f t h i s ca s e, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 18 finding s of goo d cause to deviate from the ICWA place m ent prefer ences ar e11

1 ap pr opr ia te w he the r the bur de n of pr oof w as pr ep onde ranc e of

th e e vid en ce , c le ar

a nd 2 co nv in ci ng , or b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. 3 De viation From The Placem ent Pr efer ence s Was Support ed b y Good Cause 4 { 18} Fa the r ar gue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at goo d c au se e xis te d to 5 deviate from the ICWA place m ent prefer ences w as not sup ported by the evidence. 6 T he I CWA doe s no t de fi ne “ good c au se . ” H ow ev er , th e BIA Guid el ine s f or sta te 7 co urts t o use in In dian ch ild cu sto dy pr oc ee din gs pr ovi de tha t a de te rm ina tio n of goo d 8 ca use not to fol lowthe pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s sh oul d be ba se d onone or m or e of the 9 fo llo w ing c onsi de ra tio ns: a“ re que st o f the bio log ic al pa re nts or the ch ild w he n th e 10 ch ild is of suf

fi ci en t age ”; the “ ex tr ao rd inary phy sic al or

e m oti ona l ne ed s of

the c hil d 11 as e sta

bli she d by

te sti m ony of a qua lif

ie d e xpe rt w itn es s” ; and the “ una va ila bil ity of 12 suitable fam ilies for placem ent after a diligent search has been com pleted for fam ilies 13 m ee tin g th e pr ef

er en ce cr ite ri a. ” G uid el ine s for St at e Court s; In dian C hil d C ust ody 14 Pr oc ee din gs, 44 F ed

. Re g. a t 67 , 594. 15 { 19} T he re a re som e co urts tha t l im it the ir good ca use an al y sis to the c onsi de ra tio ns 16 li st edin th e BIA Gu id el in es . Se e In re Cus to dy of S.E.G. , 521 N.W .2d 35 7, 362 17 (M inn

. 199 4) ( sta tin g tha t sim ply ap ply ing the be st i nte re sts standard is co ntr ar

y to 18 the pla in l an gua ge of

the I CWA r ea d a s aw hol e, a nd t o it s le gis la tiv e his tor y ); see 19 als o In re A dopt ion of R iff le , 922 P. 2d 51 0, 514 (Mont. 1996) (deciding it is im proper12

1 to applybest interest when d et er m ining goodcause beca use the ICWA e xpresses 2 presum ption that it is in th e Indian child’s best interest to be placed in conform ance 3 with the prefe rences)

. 4 { 20} Other courts have held that the cons iderations listed in the BIAGuidelines are 5 no t ex ha us ti ve . Se e In re Ado pt io n o f M. , 832 P. 2d 518, 522 (W as h. Ct

. App. 199 2) 6 (“ Goo d cau se is a m at te r of dis cr et ion , a nd d isc re tio n m ust be e xe rc ise d inli ght

of 7 m an y f ac tor s. T he se inc lud e but

a re not ne ce ssari ly

li m ite d to the be st i nte re sts of the 8 ch ild , th e w ish es of

the bio log ic al pare nts , the sui ta bil ity of pe rs ons pr ef

er re d f or 9 placem ent, the child’s ties to the tribe, and the child’s ability to m ak e a n y cu l tural 10 ad j ust m en ts nec es sit at ed by a par tic ular pla ce m en t. ” (c ita tio ns o m itt ed )) ; see also In 11 re Ado pt io n o f F.H. , 851 P. 2d 1361 , 1363 -6 4 (A la ska 199 3) ( “ Whe the r the re is good 12 ca use to de via te in a pa rti cula r ca se de pe nds on m an y f ac tor s in cl udi ng, but

not 13 necessarily

lim it ed t o , the best int erests of the child, the w ishes of the biol ogical 14 pa re nts , the sui ta

bil ity of pe rs ons pr ef

er re d f or pla ce m en t and the c hil d’ s ti es to the 15 tribe.” ). 16 { 21} N MS A 197 8, § 32 A -1 -3 (A ), ( B) ( 2009 ) pr ovi de , in pe rt inent pa rt, tha t the 17 Ch ildre n’ s C ode sha ll be in te rp re te d and c onstru ed to ef fe ct ua te the f

oll ow ing 18 le gis la tiv e pur

pose s: 19 A. [F

] irs t to provide for the care, protection and wholesom e m ental 20 an d ph y sic al de ve lop m en t of ch ildre n co m ing w ith in the pr ovi sio ns o f13

1 t h e Children’ s Code and th en t o p r e s e rv e t h e u n i t y o f t h e f a m ily 2 whe ne ve r po ss ib le

. A c hil d’ s he alt h an d saf et y shal l be the par am ount 3 co nc ern. P e rman e n ts e p a r a t i o n o f a c h i l df r o m th e c h i l d ’s f

a mi l y, 4 how ev er , wou ld esp eci al ly be co ns id ered when th e ch il d o r an ot he r ch ild 5 of the parent has suffer ed perm anent or severe injury or repeate d abuse. 6 It is the intent of the [L ] egislature that, to the m axim um extent poss ible, 7 ch ildre n inN ewMe xic o sh al l be r ea re d a s m em

be rs of af am ily uni t; 8 9 B. [T ] o provid e j udicial and oth er proce dures throug h which the 10 pr ovi sio ns o f the Ch il dren ’ s C ode a re e xe cu te d and e nf or ce d and i n 11 w hic h the part ies are ass ure d a fai r he ari ng a nd t

he ir c onst itu tio nal

and 12 other legal

rights are recognized a nd enfor ced [.] 13 (E m pha sis a dde d. ) T hus, in de te rm ini ng the ex ist en ce of goo d c au se to de via te f

ro m 14 the I CWA pla ce m en t pr ef eren ces , t he c ourt m

ust giv e pr im ar

y c onsi de ra tio n to the 15 ch ildre n’ s be st int er es ts, but m ust en sur e tha t the c onst itu tio na l and o the r le ga l r igh ts 16 of a ll the part ie s are c onsi de re d. 17 { 22} W e re cognize tha t parents have a “ fundam ental liberty interest in the care , 18 custody , and m anagem ent of their children.” State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies 19 Dep ’t v . Aman da M. , 200 6- N MC A -1 33, ¶ 18, 140 N

. M. 578 , 144 P. 3d 137. P ar en ts 20 al so ha ve a ri gh t t o p ur su e fam il ia l re la ti on sh ip s wi th th ei r ch il dr en . See Roberts v. 21 U. S. Jayc ees , 468 U. S. 609, 618-20 (1 9 8 4 ) (holding th at fam ilial association s are 2 2 i n c l u d e di n t h e f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g h tt o f

r e e d o m o f a s s o c i a tio n) ; se e als o Lucero v. 23 S a l a z ar , 199 4- N MC A -0 66, ¶ ¶ 6- 9, 117 N

. M. 803 , 877 P

. 2d 1 106 (r ec ogni zi ng the 24 fundam en t al ri ght of fam ilial association or right to inti m ate fam ilial relationship ).14

1 A s di sc uss ed ab ove , the I ndi antr ibe ha s an in te re st i n I ndi anc hil dr en tha t i s inpari ty 2 wit h t ha t o f th e p aren ts

. H oly fie ld , 49 0 U.S. at 52

. 3 { 23} How ever, it is well established that these rights ar e not absolu te; rather, they 4 m ust y ield to the “ best interests and welfar e of the children. ” Sta te e x re l. Ch ild

re n, 5 Y ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Jo hn R. , 200 9- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 27, 145 N

. M. 636, 203 P

. 3d 6 167 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and cit at ion om itt ed ). In as se ssi ng the c hil dr en ’ s be st 7 int er es ts, it

is im pe ra tiv e tha t the c hil dr ena re r eco gn ize d a s pe opl e w ho h av e 8 fu nd am en ta l i nt eres ts of t he ir o wn t ha t ar e co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct ed

. See In re G aul t , 9 387 U

. S. 1, 13, (1 967) (h old ing tha t the Fo urte en th A m en dm en t and the Bi ll of Ri ght s 10 ap ply to ch ildre n. ); se e als o In re Gu ar di an sh ip of Vict or ia R. , 200 9- N MC A -0 07, 11 ¶ 11, 145 N

. M. 500 , 201 P. 3d 169 (st at ing tha t a chil d is a pe rs on for pur pose s of the 12 Fourteenth Am endm ent). The c hildren have the fundam ental rig ht to be protected 13 fro m ab us e an d n eg le ct , and to ha ve a pe rm an en t an d s ta bl e p la cem en t. Id

. They “ are 14 not sim ply ch at te ls b el ongi ng t o th e pa re nt, but ha ve f undam en ta l i nte re sts of

the ir 15 own t hat m ay diverge from the interests of the parent. ” Id

. (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar

ks 16 an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 17 Stand ard of R eview for Good C ause De term inations 18 { 24} T he de te rm in at io n of goo d c au se to de via te f ro m the I CWA pla ce m en t 19 pr efer en ces is a le ga l s ta nd ard

. See D ep’t of Hum an Servs. v. Three A ffiliat ed Tribes15

1 of F ort B er tho ld R es erva tio n , 23 8 P.3 d 40 , 50 (Or. Ct. Ap p. 2 01 0) . Acco rd in gl y , “ we 2 m ust de te rm ine w he the r the f ac ts, a s f ound by the tr ia l c ourt and a s su ppor te d by 3 ev ide nc e in the re co rd , ar e le ga lly suf fi ci en t to esta

bli sh ‘ good

c au se ’ to de pa rt

f ro m 4 [the] ICWA’ s placem ent prefer ences. ” Id

. “ O n a ppe al , thi s C ourt do es not r e- w ei gh 5 the e vid en ce , r athe r, w e vie w the e vid en ce in th e lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the 6 prevailing party .” State ex r el. Childr en, Y outh & Fam ilies De

p’t v. Jerry K. , 201 5- 7 NM CA -0 4 7 , ¶2 4 , __

_ P. 3 d

_ _ _ . “ Ou r ov er ar ch i n g g o al wh en i n t er p re t i n g t h e I CWA 8 is to effec tuate Congress’ s intent.” Marlene C. , 20 11 -NMSC -0 05 , ¶ 15

. 9 Th e D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s F in di ng s of Go od C au se 10 { 25} T he dis tr ic t co urt he ar d ev ide nc e re la te d to Ch ildre n’ s pla ce m en t at the 11 ad j udi ca tor y /di spos iti ona l he ar ing , the ini tia l j udi ci al re vie w he ar ing , f ive 12 pe rm an en cy

he ar ing s, the te rm ina tio n of pare nta l rig ht s tr ia l, a nd the he ar ing on 13 Fa the r’ s m oti on t o re co nsi de r. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi ste ntl y f ound tha t go od c au se 14 ex ist ed

to de via te f

ro m the I CWA ’ s pl ac em en t pr ef er en ce s. 15 The A dju dication and the Initial Judicial Review 16 { 26} Th e a d

ju d i ca t o ry/ d i s p o s i t i o n al h ea ri n g wa s h el d o n Ap ri l 6 , 2 0 1 1 . Th e I CWA 17 qua lif ie d e xpe rt w itn es s (Q E W ) w orkin g fo r the N av aj o N at ionCh ild re n and F am ily 18 Se rv ic es te st ifi ed tha t sh e w as a w ar e of Ch ildre n’ s c ur

re nt p la ce m en ts and tha t the 19 pla ce m en ts d id n ot m ee t the I CWA pla ce m en t pr ef er en ces , b ut tha t go od c au se16

1 ex i s t ed t o d ev i at e f

ro m t h e p re fe re n ce s . T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n dt h at t h e I CWA 2 placem ent p re fe rences had not been followed because the D epartm ent had been 3 una ble to fi nd an I CWA appr ove d hom e, an d tha t the D ep ar tm en t w as w orkin g w ith 4 the N av aj o N at ionto de te rm ine a n a ppr opr ia te r el at ive pla ce m en t. 5 { 27} Th e t es t i m o n y o f t h e Q EW, t h at g o o d ca u s e e x i s t ed t o d ev i at e f ro m t h e I CWA 6 pla ce m en t pr ef

er en ce s, was suff

ic ie nt t o m ee t any

standard

. U nde r the I CWA , no 7 foster care place m ent fo r an In d ian child m ay be ordered “ in the absence of a 8 de te rm ina tio n, sup porte d by cl ear an d conv inc ing e vid en ce , inc lud ing te sti m ony of 9 qua lif ie d e xpe rt

w itn es se s, tha t the c ont in ue d cu sto dy of the c hil d by

the pare nt o r 10 In dian c ust odi anis lik ely to res ult in se ri ous em oti ona l or

phy sic al da m ag e to the 11 child.” § 1 912 (e). The best interests of Ind ian children will o ften b e d irectly linked 12 to the ir

tr iba l c ult ur e. G uid el ine s f

or St at e Court s; I ndi anCh ild Cu sto dy P ro ce ed ing s, 13 44 F ed

. Re g. a t 67 593. T he pur pose of the Q E W is to p ro vid e te sti m ony r el at ed to the 14 In dian c hil d’ s best int er es ts fr om the pe rs pe ct ive of som eo ne w ithe xpe rt

kno w le dge 15 of tri ba l cu lt ur e an d c hi ld rear in g p ract ic es . Id

. 16 { 28} Inthi s c as e, the Q E W w as a soc ia l wo rk er fo r the N av aj o N at ionCh ildre n and 17 Fam ily

S er vic es w ho h ad

be en em plo y ed w ith the N av aj o N at ionf or ove r a y ear- an d18 a-h al f, an d wh o was kn owl ed ge ab le ab ou t t he p r o v i s i o ns of t he ICWA. The QEW 1 9 e x p l a i n e d t h a t s h e w a s kn o w l e d g e ab l e ab o u t t h e p r a c t i c e s a n d t r a d i t i o n s o f the17

1 N av aj o N at iona s ar eg ist er ed m em be r of the tr ibe a nd a s an a ct ive part ic ipant i n th e 2 Navaj o practices and traditions. T h e d i s t ri ct court did not err in rely ing on her 3 te sti m ony

tha t, a t the ti m e of

the a dj udi ca tor

y /di spos iti ona l hearing , goo d c au se 4 ex ist ed to de via te f

ro m the I CWA pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s. 5 { 29} O n Ju ne 3, 201 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld an in iti al j udi ci al r ev ie w he ar ing

. 6 In fo rm at ionw as pr es en te d th at the D ep ar

tm en t w as not ab le to fi nd a pla ce m en t f

or 7 Children togeth er. Child re n we re placed in two separa te foster hom es and we re 8 vis iti ng w ithe ac h othe r. T he D ep ar tm en t w as w orkin g w ithMo the r, F athe r, a nd the 9 N av aj o N at ionto de term ine an a ppr opr ia te pla ce m en t. T he Q E W te sti fi ed tha t the 10 D ep ar tm en t w as loo kin g a t tw o r el at ive s, w ho did not li ve on the r es er

va tio n, f or 11 poss ible placem ent. T he Dep ar t m en t perm anency plannin g worker explained that 12 thr ee re la tiv es ha d com e fo rw ar d: (1) a m em be r of the Z iaP ue blo , but the Z iaP ue blo 13 w oul d no t all ow the D ep ar tm en t to condu ct a hom e stu dy be ca use Ch ildre n w er e not 14 Z iam em

be rs ; ( 2) Ch ildre n’ s pa te rn al unc le w ho w ith dr ewf or he al th re as ons; an d ( 3) 1 5 a p a t e rn a l au n t , B e rn i c e S t r a i t ( A u n t ) , f o r w h o m t h e D e p a rt m e n t w a s w o rk i n g on 16 ap pr ova l t o go f

or w ar d w iththe hom e stu dy pr oc es s. 17 { 30} T he dis tr ic t c ourt e nc our ag ed the D ep ar tm en t and the Q E W to stay in touc h and 18 w ork ou t a

sui ta ble pla ce m en t. T he Q E W did no t id entif

y any spe ci al ne ed s of 19 Ch ildre n, a nd s tate d he r ap pr ova l of Ch ildre n’ s plac em en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound18

1 th at, a t tha t t im e, the re w as goo d c au se not to fo llo w the I CWA pla ce m en t 2 pr ef er en ce s. 3 { 31} Inli ght

of the D ep ar

tm en t’ s e ff

orts t o f ind r el at ive pla ce m en ts f

or Ch ildre n, the 4 una va ila

bility of I CWA -c om

pli an t pl ac em en ts, a nd the Q E W ’ s a ppr ova l and 5 sta te m en t of

goo d c au se , w e con cl ude tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de te rm ini ng 6 t h a tg o o dc au s e e x i s t e dt o d e v i a t e f r o m t h e I C WA p l a c e me n t p r e f e r e n c e s a tt h e t i me 7 of th e in it ia l ju di ci al rev ie w. 8 Th e P er m an en cy He ar in gs 9 { 32} T he ini tia l perm an en cyhe ar ing w as he ld o n N ove m be r 30, 201 1. T he 10 D ep ar tm en t r ep orte d th at

it w as c ont inu ing to loo k f or apla ce m en t tha t m et

the 11 ICWA place m ent prefer ences and wa s working with the Navaj o Nation to identify an 12 appropriate relative. The Guard i an Ad Litem (G AL ) testified that Children we re 13 doin g well in their respective foster hom es, but that when there wa s visitatio n, there 14 w as som e tr oubl es om e sib lin g in te ra ct iontha t m ay ne ed to be de al t w ith 1 5 t h e r ap e u t i c a l l y. 16 { 33} The C AS A volunteer, who wa s a m em ber of the Navaj o Nation, r eported that 17 she w as he lpi ng t o f

ost er Ch ildre n’ s c ult

ur al co nne ct ion s. Sh e sta te d th at she w as able 18 to provid e Chil dren with traditional outfits includin g je we lry and m occasins, and that 1 9 she w a s h e l p i n g o u t w i t h T

. J

. ’ s c o m i n g o f a g e c e r e m o n y , w h i c h w a s a b i g p ar t of19

1 T

. J’ s li fe

. T he D ep ar

tm en t i ndi ca te d th at

A unt ha d agoo d r el at ion shi p w ithCh ildre n, 2 an d tha t she ha d be enve ry sup portiv e an d ha d be envis iti ng the m . T he D ep ar tm en t 3 al so r ep orte d th at

A unt ha d pr ovi de d tr ad iti ona l ite m s fo r Ch ildre n to w ear on f ea st 4 da y s, w hic h w as ve ry

m eanin gf

ul t o C hil dr en . 5 { 34} A new social w orker fr om the Navaj o Nation, a lso adm itted as a Q EW , had 6 be ena ssi gne d to the c as e. S he r eque ste d th at Mo the r an d F athe r pr ovi de na m es of 7 re la t i v e s o n t h e r e s e rv a t i o n f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s p o t e n t i a l p l a c e m e n t s f o r C h i l dr en . 8 Mothe r an d Fa the r w er e pr es en t and both ind ic at ed tha t the y w an te d C hil dr ento be 9 pla ce d w ithA unt

. T he D ep ar tm en t expl ai ne d th at

ahom e stu dy

w as start ed

w ith 10 Aunt, but that Aunt had withdraw n from consideration because she was caring for her 11 m other. H owever , at the tim e of the hear ing, Aunt w as ag ai n e xpr es sin g a n in te re st 12 in h av ing Ch ildre n pl ac ed w ith he r an d th e D ep ar tm en t w as pur sui ng tha t pl ac em en t. 13 T he c ourt st at ed

it s supp ort f

or pur sui ng and f

ina liz ing pla ce m en t of

Ch ildre n w ith 14 A unt

. T he N av aj o N at iondid not obj ec t t o A unt

a s apos sib le pla ce m en t. 15 { 35} In i t s fi rs t p er m an en cy h ea ri n g o rd er , th e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n d t h a t t h e IC WA 16 placem ent prefer ences w ere not bein g followed because the D epartm ent had been 17 un ab le to loc at e anI CWA appr ove d ho m e. H ow ev er , the c ourt a lso f ound tha t the 18 D ep ar tm en t w as w orkin g wi th the N av aj o Na tio n to de te rm ine a n a ppr opr ia te r el at ive 19 pla ce m en t, and

tha t the D ep ar

tm en t w as w orkin g w iththe N av aj o N at iona nd the20

1 fam ily to preserv e and m aintain Children’s c ultural connection . T he evidence 2 pr es en te d a t the f

ir st p er m an en cy he ar ing sho w ed tha t the D ep ar tm en t w as a ct ive ly 3 pursuin g relative placem ent optio ns for Children, and that placem ent in accordance 4 w iththe I CWA ha d no t y et be en poss ibl e due to the unw ill ing ne ss o r una va ila bil ity 5 of relative place m ents. T he De partm e nt also showed that it was m aking efforts towar d 6 ad dr es sin g th e spe ci al ne ed s of Ch ildre n and p ro m oti ng the ir c onne ct ion s w iththe ir 7 he ri ta ge . F athe r’ s r eque st, tha t Aunt be c onsi de re d a s apla ce m en t op tio n, w as be ing 8 ac tiv el y

pur sue d by

the D ep ar

tm en t. W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t co urt did not e rr in 9 fi ndi ng the re w as good ca use to dev ia te fr om the IC W A pla ce m en t pre fe re nc es a t the 10 fir st pe rm an en cy

he ari ng . 11 { 36} A se co nd p er

m an en cy he ar ing w as he ld on Fe br ua ry 22, 2012

. Fa the r w as not 12 pres en t. Fa the r’ s at tor ne y co uld not re ac h Fa the r an d did not know his loc at io n. At 13 the F eb ru ar

y 201 2 he ar ing , it

w as r ep orte d th at Ch ildre n w er e doi ng r el at ive ly w el l 1 4 i n t h e i r c u rr e n t p l a c e men t s . R

. J

. a n dC

. J

. we r e r e c e i v i n g s p e e c h a n dl a n g u a g e t h e r ap y. 15 N o othe r spe ci al ne ed s w er e ide nti fi ed

. 16 { 37} It

w as a lso r ep orte d th at

A unt ha d a ga in w ith dr aw n f

ro m the hom e stu dy 17 pr oc es s and the D ep ar tm en t ha d be ena ct ive ly

tr y ing to fi nd o the r re la tiv es . T he 18 pe rm an en cy

planni ng w orke r sta te d th at s he ha d r eque ste d nam es of r el at ive s f

ro m 19 Fath e r , M othe r , a nd A un t , a nd ha d e ve n a sk e d C hi l dr e n i f t he r e w e r e r e l a t i ve s that21

1 t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o s e e m o r e o f t e n . T h e r e l a t i v e s t h a t h a d b e e n c o n s i d e r e df or 2 pla ce m en t a t the ti m e of the he ar ing ha d be enine lig ibl e due to the ir ba ck gr ound s. 3 { 38} Whe n a ske d, the Q E W ind ic at ed tha t sh e did not be lie ve the re w as e ve r good 4 cause to deviate from the ICWA placem ent prefer ences, but that she understoo d that 5 the D ep ar

tm en t c oul d no t f

ind N av aj o or

N at ive A m er ic anf

ost er hom es fo r Ch ildre n. 6 T he D ep ar

tm en t i ndi cat ed th at

it w oul d a cc ep t he lp f

ro m the N av aj o N at ionin 7 locating po tential relative or Navaj o placem ents f or Children. T he district court asked 8 the N av aj o N at ion to as si st the D ep ar tm en t i n f ind ing asui ta

ble I CWA pla ce m en t. 9 T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that go od c au se e xis te d to de via te f ro m the IC W A pla ce m en t 10 prefer ences, and encouraged the Navaj o Nation and the Depar tm ent to work together 11 in f ind ing asui ta

ble , I CWA -c om

pli an t pl ac em en t f

or Ch ildre n. 12 { 39} T he e vid en ce pr es en te d a t the se co nd p er m an en cy he ar ing sho w ed

the 13 una va ila

bil ity of s u i t a b l e r e l at i v e s , N av a

j o , o r o the r N at ive A m er ic anpla ce m en ts. T he 14 ab se nc e of ap pr opr ia te IC W A ap pr ove d pla ce m en ts, al ong w ith the c ont inu ed e ff orts 15 by the D ep ar

tm en t and the N av aj o N at ion , co nst itu te d go od c au se to de via te f ro m the 16 IC W A pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s. A ddi tio na lly , the re w as no ind ic at ion by the G A L or 17 the Navaj o Na t i o n that Children’ s needs wer e not being m et in their placem ents at 18 tha t t im e. W e co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fi ndi ng good c au se to de via te 19 fro m th e p la cem en t p refe ren ces at t he sec on d p erm an en cy he ari ng .22

1 { 40} A thi rd

pe rm an en cy

he ar ing w as he ld o n A ugus t 20 , 201 2. F athe r w as not 2 present and his attorney wa s unable to con tact or locate him . T he De partm ent reported 3 tha t C hil dr enw er e al l pl ac ed tog ethe r in a

ne w f ost er pla ce m en t. T he ne w pla ce m en t 4 wa s not an adop tive hom e for C hildren and the D epartm ent indicated that it wanted 5 to g et Ch ildre n f

re e fo r ad opt ionso tha t the D ep ar tm en t c oul d st ar

t the a dopt ion 6 recr uitm ent effort. T he GA L r eported that Children wer e do i n g we l l i n the new 7 pla ce m en t w he re the y

w er e al l t oge the r. S he a lso sta te d C hil dr enw er e inv olv ed in 8 the ra py a nd w ithc ult

ur al a ct ivi tie s th ro ugh the Native A m er ic anCo m m uni ty 9 A ca de m

y ( N A CA ), w he re T

. J. a tte nde d sc hool

. 10 { 41} The D epartm ent reported th at i t had located som e p aternal relatives that wer e 11 w ill ing to be c onsi de re d f or pla ce m en t, but

the y ha d w ith dr aw n f

ro m the hom e stu dy 12 process because it w as too inv asive. T he perm anency plannin g worker then explained 13 that several re latives had been located f or poss ible placem ent but th at none wanted 14 to step forw ard b ecause they we re f earf ul of Father and Moth er. She also explained 1 5 t h at t h e D ep ar t me n th ad co n s i d er ed Au n tas a p l ac emen tt h re e t i m es , a n dFa t h er ’s 16 br ot he r ha d a ls o i nd ic at edth athe wou ld be a pl acement o pt io n, b ut twi ce wi th dr ew. 17 T he D ep ar

tm en t a lso inf

orm ed the c ourt tha t i t ha d m ai nta ine d c ont ac t w ithA unt a nd 18 that Aunt had provided the nam e o f a third cousin that the De partm ent could cont act23

1 regarding placem ent. The Departm ent had also asked Aunt to lookinto clan m em bers 2 tha t m ay

pr ovi de pot en tia l pl ac em en ts. 3 { 42} T he D ep ar

tm en t a ske d f

or a ssi stanc e fr om

the N av aj o N at ionin loc at ing 4 pot en tia l N av aj o pl ac em en ts. T he Q E W ind ic at ed tha t sh e sti ll ne ed ed to ru le out

a ny 5 pr opos ed

pla ce m en ts b y

the ir ad opt ionuni t and r eque ste d apho tog ra ph and p ro fi le 6 of Child re n s o t h at a r equest for cer tified hom es to consid er place m ent of Children 7 could be m ade. 8 { 43} The district court fo u nd that th e IC W A place m ent prefer ences had not been 9 fo llo w ed ; ho w ev er , “ good c au se e xis t[ ed ] f or de via tin g f

ro m the

. . . pla ce m en t 10 preferences beca

use no relative, no N avaj o, and no Indian hom es [had] been 11 ide nti fi ed

a nd a ppr ove d f or pla ce m en t. ” T he c ourt f

urthe r fo und tha t the “ D ep ar tm en t 12 [w as,] through its treatm ent plan, . . . ensu ring that [C] hildren’ s cultural ties [w ere] 13 be in g p ro te ct edan d fo st ered .” 14 { 44} Th e D ep ar t m en t ’s i n ab i l i t y t o p l ac e C h i l d re n i n co m p l i a n ce wi t h t h e I CWA 15 placem ent prefer ences st em m ed prim arily

from the unavailabilit y

of suitable fam ilies 16 for placem ent. T here w as no testim ony to indi cate C hildren had s p ecial needs that 17 w er e unm et

in the ir c ur re nt p la ce m en t. W e al so n ote tha t the re w as no o bj ec tio n to 18 the placem ent by

the parents or the N avaj o Nation. W e conclude that the district court24

1 ap pr opr ia te ly

f ound tha t the re w as go od cau se to de via te f ro m the pla ce m en t 2 pr ef er en ce s a t the thi rd

pe rm an en cy

he ar ing

. 3 { 45} O n F eb ru ar

y 19, 2013 , af

ourth p er m an en cy he ar ing w as he ld. F athe r w as not 4 pr es en t and h is a tto rn ey w as una ble to loc at e him

. A t tha t he ar ing , the D ep ar tm en t 5 reported that R. J. and C. J. had been placed in t re at m ent foster care bec ause they 6 needed a higher level of care. The De partm ent also indi cate d t h at it had been 7 unsu ccessful in finding an d q u al ify ing a suitabl e re lative or Na tive Am erican 8 pla ce m en t for Children. The GA L r eported that R.J. and C.J. had experienced 9 sig ni f i c a n ta n dt r o ub l i n g b e h a v i o r s t h a t n e c e s s i t a t e dt h e i r

t r a n s i t i o n t o at r e a t m en t 10 foster care f

acility . S he inform ed the court that T. J. rem ained placed in her original 11 foster hom e and that she wa s doin g well in that placem ent and at scho o l wher e her 12 cu ltura l t ie s w er e be ing pr ote ct ed a nd f ost er ed

. 13 { 46} T he dis tr ic t c ourt as ke d th e Q E W w ha t the N av aj o N at ion ’ s po sit ionw as on the 14 ef fo rt s of the D ep ar

tm en t and o n w he the r good cau se e xis te d to de via te f ro m the 15 IC W A pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s. T he Q E W sta te d th at the N av aj o N at ionsup porte d th e 16 D ep ar tm en t’ s e ff

orts to fin d perm an en cy fo r Ch ildre n; how ev er , the N av aj o N at ion 17 w as sti ll loo ki ng fo r poss ibl e re la tiv e pla ce m en ts o n th e re se rv at ion , a nd tha t a 18 refe rral had bee n m ade to the Navaj o Nation’ s adoptio n unit. The N avaj o Nation had25

1 g i v en ap p ro v al f

o rt h e D ep ar t m en tt o co n du ct a n at i o n wi d e s ea rc h fo r a n IC WA 2 pr ef er re d ho m e sui ta

ble f or pe rm an en t pl ac em en t. 3 { 47} T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound tha t the D ep ar

tm en t ha d m ad e ac tiv e ef

fo rt s to c om

ply 4 w ith the I CWA pla ce m en t pr ef er en ce s, tha t the D ep ar

tm en t ha d pr ove n be y ond a 5 re as ona

ble doubt tha t go od c au se e xis te d to de via te fr om the pr ef er en ce s, a nd tha t the 6 N av aj o N at ionc onc ur re d w iththe pla ce m en t un de r the c ir cu m stan ce s. T he 7 D ep ar tm en t’ s in ab ili ty

to pla ce Ch ildre n inc om pli an ce w iththe ICWA pla ce m en t 8 pr ef er en ce s st em

m ed pr im ari lyf

ro m the unava ila

bil ity of sui ta ble f am ili es f or 9 placem ent. T here w as no te stim ony to ind icate Children had special needs that w ere 10 unm et in the ir c ur re nt p la ce m en t. W e al so no te th at th er e w as no o bj ec tio n to the 11 placem ent by

the p ar en t s o r th e N avaj o Nation. W e conclude that the district court 12 ap pr opr ia te ly

f ound tha t the re w as goo d c au se to d ev ia te fr om the pla ce m en t 13 pr ef er en ce s a t the f

ourth p er m an en cy he ar ing

. 14 Th e Te rm in at ion of

P ar en ta l Righ ts Tr ial 15 { 48} T he te rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts tri al w as he ld o ve r thr ee day s: Apr il 1, 201 3, 16 April 24, 2013, and May 1 7 , 201 3. O n April 24, 2013, Mother re linqu ished her 17 pa re nta l rights a nd the tr ia l pr oc ee de d a s to F athe r’ s r igh ts. A t the tr ia l, the 1 8 D e p a rt me n tp e rma n e n c y p l a n n i n g w o rk e r r e p o rt e d t h a t T

. J

. w a s t h r i v i n g i n t h e h o me 19 w he re she w as pla ce d, tha t sh e w as ex cel ling insc hool a nd w as inv olv ed in26

1 extracurr icular ac tivities, but th at R.J. and C.J. we re e xperiencing behavio ral 2 dif fi cu lti es a nd h ad

be enpla ce d in tr ea tm en t f ost er c ar e. T he pe rm an en cy

planni ng 3 worker also reported that Children wer e m aintaining their cultur al t i es , T. J. w as 4 attending NA CA and was involved in their dance club, and the treatm ent foster 5 parents we re r eading boo ks to R.J. and C.J. to help them learn a bout their culture. 6 { 49} T he perm an en cy pl an ni ng work er t es ti fie d t ha t s he ha d m ai nta ine d c ont ac t w ith 7 the N av aj o N at ionw ithr eg ar d to C hil dr en ’ s pl ac em en ts. S he sta te d th at the 8 D ep ar tm en t ha d c ont inu ed it s ef fo rt s to ide nti fy

a nd l oc at e sui ta

ble hom es f

or 9 pla ce m en t, but

that th e relat ive s w ho h ad be enide nti fi ed

a s of the da te of

the 10 te rm ina tio n he ar ing s ha d be enunw ill ing or una ble to pr ovi de asui ta

ble pla ce m en t f

or 11 Children. She explained that ho m e studies had been ini tiated with rela tives; ho we ver, 12 the relatives had withdraw n from the process. The perm anency plann i n g worker 13 re porte d th at

no N av aj o or

oth er N at ive A m er ic anpla ce m en ts h ad be enide nti fi ed

but 14 that the Depar

tm ent was contin uing to work with the Navaj o Nation to locate other 15 re la tiv es or

pot en tia l pl ac em en ts. 16 { 50} A D ep ar

tm en t e m plo y ee , w ho a ssi sted Aunt dur ing the hom e stu dy

pr oc es s, 17 te sti fi ed

about the D ep ar

tm en t’ s att em

pt s to li ce nse A unt

a s af ost er pla ce m en t f

or 18 Children. In June 2011 Aunt contacted the De partm ent to be consid ered a s a potential 19 placem ent. Aunt com

pleted the Relative, Adoptive, Foster Pare nt Tra ining (RA FT ),27

1 a fo ur day tr ai nin g c la ss r equir ed

f or f ost er pla ce m en t l ic en sin g. T he D ep ar tm en t 2 re qui re s f

ost er pare nts a nd m em

be rs of f ost er f am ili es ove r the a ge of

se vente ento 3 com plete RAF T training as part of the hom e study process. T he De partm ent initiated 4 a hom e stu dy ; ho w ev er , A unt ’ s m oth er be cam e ve ry il l and Aunt

w ith dr ewf

ro m the 5 process in August 20 11. A t t h at t im e interview s with fam ily m em bers, which w ere 6 ne ed ed to co m ple te the hom e stu dy , ha d no t be enc ondu ct ed

. 7 { 51} A unt

c ont ac te d th e D ep ar

tm en t a ga in i n D ec em

be r 2011 a nd the D ep ar

tm en t 8 started the hom e stu d y process again. In F ebruary 2012 , Aunt’s m other wa s 9 hosp ita liz ed

a nd Aunt

w ith dr ewf

ro m c onsi de ra tio n a s a pl acem en t f or Ch ildre n in 10 or de r to c ar e fo r he r. In N ove m be r 2012 , Aunt contacted the De partm ent and asked 11 to b e co nsi de re d athi rd ti m e. T he D ep ar

tm en t ad vis ed

A unt tha t he r son w oul d be 12 int er vie w ed a nd r equir ed

to pa rt ic ipa te in the RA FT tr aini ng . A unt inf orm ed the 13 De partm ent that her son would no t cooperate. 14 { 52} O n N ove m

be r 26, 2012 , the D ep ar

tm en t se nt A unt a le tte r advis ing th at the 15 requested interviews and RA FT training were required b y policy , and requested that 16 A unt c ont ac t the D ep ar

tm en t by D ec em be r 3, 201 2, to co nf

irm he r son’ s part ic ipa tio n 17 an d a vo id A unt

be ing w ith dr aw n f

ro m c onsi de ra tio n athi rd

ti m e. A unt

c al le d th e 18 D ep ar tm en t and s ta te d th at

he r son w oul d a tte nd RAFT t rai nin g sc he dul ed f or 19 De cem

ber 1, 2012 ; however, her son did no t attend the training. Aunt later r eported28

1 to the D ep ar

tm en t tha t he r son w oul d no t c oope ra te e ith er w ithan in te rv ie w or

w ith 2 the tr ai nin g. T he D ep ar tm en t i nf orm ed A unt tha t i t w oul d have to w ith dr awA unt 3 fr om c onsi de ra tio n a ga in. 4 { 53} T h e D e p a rt me n t ’s h o me s tu d y w o rk e r e x p l a i n e d t h a tt h e p u r p o s e o f t h e h o me 5 stu dy is to m ak e sur e tha t Chi ldr en ar e pla ce d in a sa fe hom e an d th at the pe opl e in 6 the hom e ar e ab le to ha ndl e Ch ildre n’ s be havio rs a nd p ro vid e a sa fe a nd nurtu ri ng 7 e n v i r o n me n t

. S h e s t a t e d t h a t t h e s o n ’s p a rt i c i p a t i o n w a s a c r i t i c a l p a rt o f t h e h o me 8 stu dy be ca use he w oul d share a ro om w ithR. J. a nd C

. J. , w ho h ad be entr au m at iz ed , 9 a n dth e s o n n e e d e dt o kn o w h o w t o i n t e r a c twi th C h i l d r e n e f f i c i e n t l y a n dh e l p f

u l l y. 10 A cc or din g to the hom e stu dy w orke r, the sonha d no t l ive d w ithsm al l c hil dr enin the 11 hom e be fo re a nd the D ep ar tm en t w an te d to equip him w ith ski lls tha t wo uld he lp h im 12 int er ac t w ithCh ildre n. 13 { 54} A unt

w as pr es en t an d te sti fi ed at the te rm ina tio n tr ia l. Sh e sta te d th at w he n sh e 14 withdrewfrom

consideration th e third tim e, interviews w ith the m em bers of her 1 5 h o u s eh o l dh ad n o t y et b ee n co m p l et ed , t h er e h ad n o tb ee n a r ep o rt fr o m h ers o n ’s 16 school, and she had no t pr o v i d ed the Depar tm ent with copies of her incom e tax 17 doc um en ts a s r eque ste d. H ow ev er , A unt ind ic at ed tha t she w as sti ll w ill ing to p ro vid e 18 a hom e fo r Ch ildre n and tha t he r son w as noww ill ing to ta ke the r equir ed c la sse s.29

1 { 55} The QEW

als o t es ti fie d a t t he ter m i n a t i on tri al . She st at edth atth e Nav ajo 2 N at ionw as in supp ort of the te rm ina tio n of

pare nta l r igh ts b ec au se F athe r ha d no t 3 be enable to co m

ple te his se rv ic e plan and h ad not de m onstra te d th at he w as able to 4 parent Children without sub stance abu se or dom estic violence, neither of which w as 5 acce ptable in the Navaj o culture. The QEW testified that returning Children to Father 6 w oul d r es ult

in se ri ous em oti ona l or phy sic al ha rm to C hil dr ena nd tha t C hil dr en , w ho 7 h a db e e n i n c u s t o d y fo r ab o u tt w o ye a r s , n e e d e dp e rman e n c y. 8 { 56} As to Children’ s placem ent, the Q EW reported that the Depar

tm ent conferre d 9 w iththe N av aj o N at ionw he n it w as c ha ngi ng Chi ldr en ’ s tem por ar y pla ce m en t, a nd 10 tha t the N av aj o N at ionappro ve d Chil dr en ’ s te m por ar y pla ce m en ts b ec au se the 11 D ep ar tm en t di d no t have an IC W A -c om pli an t pla ce m en t. T he Q E W te sti fi ed tha t sh e 12 w as a w ar e of

the D ep art m en t’ s e ff

orts t o qu al if

y A unt a s ar el at ive pla ce m en t f or 13 Ch ildre n. I t w as he r unde rs tandi ng tha t the la st tim e A unt w as be ing c onsi de re d a s a 14 re la tiv e pla ce m en t, she did not w an t t o take a ll thr ee Ch ildre n, onl y T

. J. S he a lso 15 reported that the Navaj o Nation attem pted to find a fam ily

for place m ent, but that 16 poss ibl e pla ce m en ts w er e too f ar f ro m Fa the r an d Mothe r to a llo w the m to m ai nta in 17 a pa re nt- ch ild

r el at ion shi p w ithCh ildre n. 18 { 57} T he Q E W

f urthe r te sti fi ed

tha t the D e p ar

tm en t ha d m ad e ac tiv e ef

fo rt s to loc at e 19 other Navaj o and oth er N ative Am erican fam ilies for tem porary placem ent, and that30

1 t h e N av aj o Na t i o n b el i ev ed t h at t h er e w as g o o dca u s e t o d ev i at e f ro m t h e I C WA 2 pr ef er en ce s fo r Ch ildre n’ s te m por ar y pla ce m en ts. Sh e al so rep or te d t ha t t he Nava jo 3 Na tion h ad given approv al to open up a nationwide sear ch for an I CWA preferre d 4 hom e sui ta

ble f or pe rm an en t pl ac em en t. 5 { 58} T he dis tr ic t court announc ed tha t i t w oul d gr an t the D ep ar tm en t’ s m oti on t o 6 te rm ina te F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts. T he co urt poi nte d out tha t si nc e the N av aj o N at ion 7 ha d no t y et ap pr ove d a fi na l, ad opt ive pla ce m en t fo r Ch ildre n, the iss ue of pla ce m en t 8 of Ch ildre n w as ong oin g and Aunt w as sti ll a pot en tia l pl ac em en t. 9 M ot ion f

or R ec on sid er at ion 10 { 59} Fa the r fi le d am oti on t o r ec onsi de r ru lin g onMay 28, 201 3, a nd the he ar ing on 11 tha t m oti on w as he ld o n A ugus t 1, 2013

. Fa the r ar gue d tha t it w as a vio la tio n of

his 12 due pr oc es s r igh ts t o a llo w the D ep ar tm en t’ s polic y tha t seve nte en -y ear- old s take the 13 foster pare nt classes to override th e ICW A’ s active efforts requirem ent to not break 1 4 up t h e f

amil y, w h i c h i n cl u d ed ex t en d ed fa m i l y. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed Fa t h er ’s 15 m oti on b as ed

on the inf orm at iona nd te sti m ony in the r ec or d, inc lud ing the te sti m ony 16 of the Q E W tha t the D ep ar

tm en t ha d m ad e ac tiv e ef

fo rt s to pr ev en t the br eakup of the 1 7 I n d i a n f

a mi l y. 18 { 60} T he c ourt a ske d th e D ep ar tm en t to m ak e ef

fo rt s to he lp Aunt

c om ply w iththe 19 lic en sin g r equir em en ts and t o a ct ive ly e nga ge A unt ’ s son to pa rt ic ipa te in the c la sse s.31

1 The D epartm ent indicated that after the May 17, 2013, hearing, the D epartm ent had 2 be ena tte m

pti ng t o r e- en ga ge A unt in the pr oc es s and tha t the y ha d be enuna

ble to 3 re ac h he r, but

tha t the doo r w as de fi nit el y ope n. 4 The F ifth Pe rm anency He aring 5 { 61} On Augus t 26, 2013, the court held a fifth perm anency hearing. W e consider 6 the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s dete rm ina tio n of good cause to dev ia te fr om the IC W A pla ce m en t 7 prefer ences at this hearing because at the tim e, Father’ s parental rights had not y et 8 be ente rm ina te d. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt ha d announc ed its int en tio n to gr an t the 9 D ep ar tm en t’ s m oti on t o te rm ina te F athe r’ s parent al rig hts at the c onc lus ionof

the 1 0 te rm i n a t i o n t r i a l i n M a y 2 0 1 3 , F a t h e r w a s n o t d i v e s t e d o f h i s p a r e n t a l r i ght s, a nd 11 the re by his int er es t in Ch ildre n’ s pla ce m en t, unt il the dis tr ic t co urt’ s ju dg m ent 12 t e rm in at in g F at he r’s pa ren ta l ri gh ts was fi le d i n Oct ob er 2 01 3. See State v. 13 Lohberger , 2008-NMS C-033, ¶ 20, 144 N. M. 297, 187 P. 3d 16 2 (“ Inform al 14 ex pr es sio ns o f a co urt’s rulin gs are not appe al ab le f

ina l or de rs or

j udgm en ts. F or 15 ex am ple , atr ia l co urt’ s or al a nnounc em en t of ar es ult is not f ina l, a nd p ar

tie s to the 16 ca se sho uld

ha ve no r ea sona

ble e xpe ct at ionof

it s f ina lity . ”) ; se e als o Bouldi n v. 17 Br u ce M. Be rnar d, Inc. , 1967 -N MSC- 155, ¶ 3, 78 N .M. 188, 429 P. 2d 647 (“[A]n 18 or al r uli ng b y the tr ia l j udge is not

af ina l j udgm en t. I t i s m er el y ev ide nc e of w ha t the32

1 court had decided to do —a decision that the trial court can c hange at any tim e before 2 the entry

of a f inal judgm ent.”)

. 3 { 62} A t the f

if th p er m an en cy he ar ing , the D ep ar

tm en t re porte d tha t T

. J. w as doi ng 4 w el l i n he r fo ste r pla ce m en t, a nd tha t R .J. an d C.J. c ont inu ed to re qui re tr ea tm en t 5 foster care a s well as intensiv e therapeutic treatm ent. The D epartm ent also reported 6 tha t Aunt had be envis iti ng C hil dr en , but tha t sh e ha d be ente lli ng C hil dr enthi ngs 7 about th eir parents that we re upsettin g Children. The De partm ent inform ed the court 8 tha t i t ha d at te m

pte d to en ga ge A unt in a fo urth hom e stu dy , tha t Aunt ha d no t f ull y 9 p a rt i c i p a t e di n t h e h o me s tu d y, a n dt h a t A u n t w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e p r o c e s s af

o u rt h t i me 10 be cau se sh e d id no t fe el li ke it was “ fai r to he r so n.” 11 { 63} T he Q E W

ind ic at ed that sh e ha d no t r

uled out the N av aj o N at ion ’ s a dopt ion 12 unit as to anypotential pl acem ents, and that she wa s exploring Children’ s m aternal 13 re la tiv es f

or poss ibl e pla ce m en t optio ns. T he Q E W r ep orte d th at

the N av aj o N at ion 14 supp orte d C hil dr en ’ s cu rr en t pla ce m en t w he re the y w er e re ce ivi ng tre atm en t f or the ir 15 spe ci al ne ed s. T he Q E W al so sta te d tha t T

. J. ha s a sa y in he r ad opt ive pla ce m en t, a nd 16 tha t the Q E W

sup porte d T

. J’ s de ci sio n. 17 { 64} The d i strict court found that th e IC W A place m ent prefer ences had not been 18 followed; h owever , goo d cause exis ted for devi ating from the placem ent prefer ences 19 be ca use no r el at iv e, no Nav aj o, a nd n o I ndi anhom es ha d be enide nti fi ed a nd33

1 approved for placem ent. W e conclude the district court a ppropriately

found there wa s 2 go od cau se to de vi at e fro m th e p la cem en t p refe ren ces . 3 Judgm ent Term inating F ather’ s Paren tal Right s 4 { 65} T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ile d it s j udgm en t t er

m ina tin g Fath er’s p ar en ta l r igh ts o n 5 O ct obe r 29, 201 3. I n it s j udgm en t, the district court found that the Dep ar t m en t had 6 m ad e ac tiv e ef

fo rt s to c om

ply w iththe I CWA pla ce m en t pr ef er en ces, tha t the 7 D ep ar tm en t ha d pr ove n that

goo d c au se e xis te d to de via te f ro m the pr ef er en ce s, a nd 8 tha t the N av aj o N at ionc onc ur re d w iththe pla ce m en t un de r the c ir cu m stanc es . 9 { 66} W e conclude that the d i strict court’ s finding s that goo d cause existed 1 0 thr o u g h o u tt h i s ca s e t o d ev i at e f ro m t h e I CWA p l ac emen tp re fe re n ce s we re s up p o rted 11 by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce . A s no te d e ar lie r, the ap pli ca ble standard

w as not be fo re thi s 12 Court, but the district court’ s finding s would have been appropriate no m atter w hat 13 standard

w as a ppl ie d. Fo r pu rp ose s of the BI A G uid el ine s, w e not e tha t the 14 D ep ar tm en t m ad e co nsi ste nt ef

fo rt s to hono r Mothe r’ s an d Fa the r’ s r eque st tha t Aunt 15 be c onsi de re d a s apla cem en t fo r Ch ildre n; the D ep ar tm en t and the N av aj o N at ion , 16 w orkin g in co nj unc tio n, w er e una ble to fi nd an a va ila

ble I CWA pr ef

er re d pl ac em en t 17 fo r Ch ildre n; and the Depar tm en t de m onstra te d th at

Ch ildre n’ s c ult

ur al , phy sic al , 18 m en ta l, a nd e m oti ona l ne ed s w er e be ing a ddre sse d th ro ugh Ch ildre n’ s tr ea tm en t 19 plans, de spi te the unava ila bil ity of I CWA pr ef

er re d pl ac em en ts.34

1 { 67} It i s al s o s i g n i fi ca n tt h at t h e N av aj o Na t i o n d i dn o t o b j e ct t o Ch i l d re n ’s 2 placem ent at any poin t during the case. The Navaj o Nation never expressed concer n 3 tha t C hil dr en ’ s c ult

ur al , phy sic al , e m oti ona l, a nd p sy ch olo gic al ne ed s w er e not be ing 4 m et by the ir tr ea tm en t pla ns. It is al so sign if ic an t tha t the Q E W re co gni ze d that , w ith 5 re ga rd to Ch ildre n’ s f

ost er c ar e pla ce m en ts, goo d c au se e xis te d to de via te f ro m the 6 IC W A pr ef

er re d pl ac em en ts. 7 R el at ive P lac em en t U nd er N ew M ex ic o L aw 8 { 68} Ne w Me xico law expre sses a prefe rence that an y child sub j ect to the Ne w 9 M ex i co Ab u s e a n dNe g l ec tAc tb e p l ac ed wi t h re l at i v es , wh et h ero r n o tt h e c h i l d ’s 10 cas e fal ls un de r th e ICWA. See § 32 A -4 -2 5. 1( D ) (“ [T ]he co urt sh al l de te rm ine 11 w he the r the [ D ]epart m en t ha s m ad e re as ona ble e ff orts t o id en tif

y a nd l oc at e al l 12 gr an dpare nts a nd o the r re la tiv es . T he c ourt sh al l a lso de te rm ine w heth er the 13 [D ] ep ar

tm en t ha s m a d e r e a s o n ab le e ff orts t o c ondu ct

hom e stu die s ona ny

appr opr ia te 14 relative expressing an interest in provid ing perm anency for .

. . [ Children] . T he court 15 m ust e nsur e the c onsi de ra tio n ha s be en giv en to

. . . [C hil dr en ] ’ s fam ili al ide nti ty a nd 16 co nne ct ion s. ”) ; se e als o 8. 10. 3. 16( F) N MA C ( 3/3 1/2 010) ( am en de d 2/ 29/ 2012 ) (the 17 D ep ar tm en t “ sha ll m ak e ev er

y e ff ort t o id en tif

y , loc at e[ , ] a nd n oti fy fit an d w ill ing 18 re la tiv es f

or c onsi de ra tio n of

pla ce m en t of

ac hil d i n cu st ody

w ho r equir es out

of 19 hom e pla ce m en t” ); 8. 10. 7. 17( A ) N MA C ( 3/3 1/2 010) ( “ [T he ] depa rtm en t sh al l35

1 exercise due diligence to identify and notify

adult relatives of a child’s r em oval 2 w ith in thirty

. . . day s of the re m ova l. T he not ic e sha ll inf orm r el at ive s of

the ir opt ion 3 to becom e a place m ent resource f or the child.”). 4 { 69} T o th e ex te nt tha t Fa the r ar gue s tha t the D ep ar tm en t fa ile d to m ak e re as ona ble 5 ef fo rt s to ide nti fy , loc at e, a nd c ondu ct hom e stu die s onw ill ing a nd a ppr opriate 6 re la tiv es w ho c oul d po te nti al ly se rv e as pla ce m en t f

or Ch ildre n, as requir ed

by 7 Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 5 .1 (D ) a n d t h e r el at ed re g u l at i o n s , we co n cl u d e t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 8 efforts to place Children with relatives, as outlined abo ve, w ere sufficient to satisfy 9 th os e req ui rem en ts

. 10 D ue P ro ce ss 11 { 70} W e not e tha t F athe r doe s no t c ha lle nge the su ffi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to 12 supp ort the te rm ina tio n of his pare nta l r igh ts. I nstead , F athe r cl ai m s th at the 13 De partm ent’ s failure to place Children with relatives or no n-relative Indian fam ilies 14 vio la te d his subst an tiv e and pr oc ed ur al ri ght s to due pr oc es s. F athe r ar gue s th at his 15 subs tantive due pr o ce s s rights were violated when the Depar tm ent failed to place 16 Ch ildre n w ithA unt , in vio la tio n of the I CWA , a nd thus he w as de pr ive d of his r igh t 17 to m ai nta in a

f am ili al r el at ion shi p w ithhis c hil dren

. F athe r al so c ont en ds tha t the 18 dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi m pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s by

e nte ri ng a

j udgm en t t er

m ina tin g36

1 his pare nta l r igh ts i n th e ab se nc e of f ull pr oc edur al com

pli an ce w iththe pla ce m en t 2 pr efer en ces forInd ia n c hi ld ren un de r New Mex ic o l aw an d t he ICWA. 3 { 71} Be ca

use w e ha ve c onc lud ed

tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s th at

goo d c au se 4 existed throu ghou t this case to deviate from the ICW A placem ent prefer ences w ere 5 supp orted by

sufficient evidence, and that the Departm ent’ s efforts to place Children 6 w ith re la tiv es w er e suf fi ci en t to sati sf

y the re qui re m en ts of the N ewMe xic o Abuse 7 an d Neg le ctAct, Fa th er’s s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s ar gu m en t fa il s. 8 { 72} Fa t h erfu rt h erar g u es t h at t h e D ep ar t m en twr o n g l y i n t er fe re dwi t h Fa t h er ’s 9 pur sui t of

his f am ili al re la tio nshi p wi th Chi ldr en by fa ili ng to m ak e ac tiv e ef fo rt s to 10 place Children w ith Aunt. Pr i o r t o t erm ination of parental r ights Father did have a 11 su bs ta nt iv e due pro ces s ri gh t i n a rel at io ns hi p wi th Ch il dr en . See S anto sky v. Krame r , 12 455 U

. S. 745, 753 (1 982)

. H ow ev er , w e co nc lud ed tha t w he the r the Depa rtm en t 13 m ad e ac tiv e ef

fo rt s to pr ev en t the br eakup of the fam ily is not aniss ue in thi s a ppe al

. 14 Co ns eq ue nt ly, Fat he r’s arg um en t fa il s. 15 { 73} O nc e his pare nta l r igh ts w er e te rm ina te d, he no l onge r ha d th at le ga l r igh t t o 16 a co nt in ui ng fam il ia l r e l a ti on sh ip wit h C hi ld ren . See § 32 A -4 -2 9( L ) (s ta tin g 17 “ term ina[tion o f] p ar en t al rights div ests the parent of all legal rights and privileges 18 an d di spe nse s w ithboth th e ne ce ssi ty f or the c onse nt t o or

r ec ei pt o f not ic e of

a ny 19 subs equent adopt ion proceeding concerning the child[ren] ”).37

1 { 74} Father’ s procedural due process claim is also based on the De partm ent’ s foster 2 care pla ce m en t of Ch ildre n in non- In dian ho m es . “ [P ] ro ce ss i s du e w he n apr oc ee din g 3 affe cts or i nterfer es with the parent-child relationship.” Sta te exre l. Ch ild re n, Youth 4 & Fam ilies Dep’t v . M aria C. , 200 4- N MC A -0 83, ¶ 24, 136 N

. M. 53, 94 P

. 3d 7 96. 5 Whe the r a pa re nt w as a ff or ded du e pr oces s inabuse a nd n eg le ct pr oc ee din gs i s a 6 qu es ti on we rev ie w de n ov o. State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies Dep’t v

. 7 Kathleen D. C. , 200 7- N MS C- 018, ¶ 11, 141 N

. M. 535 , 157 P. 3d 714. Pr oc ed ur al due 8 process rights are im plicated when a per son has b een denied “ notice and an 9 oppo rtunity

to be heard at a m eaningful tim e and in a m eaningful m anner. ” State ex 10 re l. Chi ld

re n,Y ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ch ri st op he r B. , 2014 -N MC A -0 16, ¶ 6, 316 11 P. 3d 9 18 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and cit at io n om itt ed ). Be ca use F athe r’ s c la im 12 relied on the De partm ent’ s placem ent of Ch ildren during the pendency of the neglect 13 pr oc ee din gs, r athe r than hi s no tic e of a nd o ppor

tun ity to pa rt ic ipa te in the te rm ina tio n 14 proceedings, the argum ent fails. W e hold F ather’ s procedural due process rights were 15 not vio la te d. 16 F air an d Im pa rt ial P ro ce ed in gs 17 { 75} Fa the r co nte nds tha t he w as de nie d f ai r an d im pa rt ia l t er m ina tio n pr oc ee din gs 18 because the district court j udg e p r e si di ng o ve r F athe r ’ s t e r

m ination proceedings failed 19 to r ec use him se lf

w he n C hil dr enw er e pla ce d inthe f ost er hom e of aj udge servin g38

1 w ith in the sa m e j udi ci al dis tr ic t. F athe r ac know le dge s th at th is i ssu e w as not 2 pr es er ve d. N one the le ss, F athe r ur ge s th is C ourt to ad dr es s the iss ue , c la im ing tha t i t 3 affe ct s F a t h e r’s fu nd am en ta l ri gh t t o a fai r an d i m pa rti al he ari ng . See Ru le 12- 4 216( B) (2 ) N MR

A ( “ T his ru le sha ll not

pr ec lud e the appe lla te c ourt f ro m c onsi de ri ng 5

. . . questio ns inv olvin g . . . fundam ental err or or fundam ental rights of a party .” ). 6 { 76} The f

irst step in review ing for fundam ental err or is to determ ine whether an 7 erro r oc cu rred

. Campos v. Bravo , 200 7- N MS C- 021, ¶ 8, 141 N

. M. 801 , 161 P

. 3d 8 46. 8 If erro r ha s oc cu rred , we th en co ns id er whe th er th e erro r was fun da m en ta l. Id

. Father 9 ba se s hi s c la im

tha t he w as de pr ive d of

f ai r an d im

pa rt ia l pr oc ee din gs, on R ule 21- 10 211( A ) N MR

A , w hic h r equir es th at a j udge “ dis qua lif y him se lf or he rs el f in any 11 proceeding in which the judge’ s im partiality m ight reasonablybe ques t ioned.” Id

. 12 Fa the r ar gue s that it co uld ap pe ar tha t the j udge pr es idi ng ove r Fa the r’ s c as e m igh t 13 co nsi de r the im

pa ct on his co lle ag ue if the dis tr ic t co urt j udge re m ove d C hil dr enf ro m 14 the colleague’ s foster hom e to place them with A unt. How ever, t h e d i s trict court 15 j udge ty

pic al ly doe s not de te rm ine pla ce m en t w he n ac hil d is in the le ga l c ust ody of 16 th e Dep art m en t. See NMS A 1978 , § 32A-1-4(O ) (2009) (defining “ legal custody ” as 17 “ a le ga l st at

us c re at ed

by or de r of the c ourt .

. . tha t ve sts in a pe rs on, de pa rtm en t or 18 agency

the right to determ ine wher e and with w hom a child shall live” (internal 19 quot at ionm ar

ks om itt ed ))

. T he sugg es tio n tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt j udge ’ s im pa rt ia lity39

1 co u l db e r ea s o n ab l y q u es t i o n ed , ba s ed s o l el y o n t h e fa ct t h at h e an d o n e o f C h i l d re n ’s 2 te m por ar y f ost er pare nts sa t c onc ur

re ntlya s j udge s f

or the sa m e dis tr ic t, is 3 ins uf fi ci en t t o r equir e re cu sa l. Se e R oy bal v . M orr is , 1983 -N MCA -101, ¶ 7, 100 N. M. 4 3 0 5 , 6 6 9 P

. 2 d 1 1 0 0 ( “S u s p i c i o n o f b i a s o r p r e ju d i c e i s n o te n o u g h t o d i s q u a l i f y a 5 j udge.”). W e conclude that the district court j udge did not err in not recusing him self. 6 CON CLU SION 7 { 77} F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. 8 { 78} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

9 10 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 11 I CONCUR:

12 13 MIC HAE L D . B US TAM AN TE, Judge

14 JAM ES J. WEC HSLER , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring).40

1 WECH SLER , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring). 2 { 79} I co nc ur

in the r es ult of the m aj or ity opi nio n. I w ri te se pa ra te ly be ca use I w oul d 3 ta ke adif

fe re nt p ath ina ff

irm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt. 4 { 80} The nature of the case on appeal is sig nif i ca n t

. Father a

ppeals the dist rict 5 court’ s judgm ent term inating his par ental rights to Chil dren. I n his request for relief 6 in his b rief in chief

, F at h er s pecifically

asks this Cou rt to rever se the order 7 te rm ina tin g th ose r igh ts, in ad dit ionto re que sti ng an or de r re qui ri ng the D ep ar tm en t 8 to p la ce Ch ildre n w ithhis r el at ive s. T he m aj or ity sta te s that Fa the r ap pe al ed , not in 9 order to restore his pare ntal rights, b u t t o re quire the De partm ent to place Children 10 w ithA unt

or , a lte rn at ive ly , a ny

int er es te d r el at ive

. Ma

j or ity O pi nio n ¶

¶ 1, 7. T he 11 m aj or ity

the re fo re f

oc use s it s an al y sis on the fo ste r care pla ce m en t of Ch ildre n pr ior 12 to t er m ina tio n of

F athe r’ s pare nt al rights. Ma j or ity O pin ion¶

8. Bu t r eg ar dle ss o f 13 Fat he r’s st at ed pu rp os es th at un de rli e hi s req ue st as ch arac te riz ed by t he m ajor it y , I 14 co nsi de r Fa the r’ s appe al to be ine xtr ic ab ly lin ke d to the pr oc ee din g to te rm ina te his 15 pa ren ta l ri gh ts pu rs ua nt to th e ICWA. 16 { 81} A t e rmi n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s p r o c e e d i n g i s f u n d a me n t a l l y d i f

f e r e n t f r o m a 17 fo ste r care pla ce m en t pr oc ee din g un de r the I CWA

. “ Fo ste r care pla ce m en t” m eans 18 “ an y act ionr em ovi ng an I ndi anc hil d f ro m it s pare nt o r In dian c ust odi anf or 19 te m por ar y pla ce m en t .

. . w he re the pa re nt o r In dian c ust odi anc an not ha ve the c hil d16 Fa the r al so arg ue s th at the D ep ar

tm en t f ai le d to c om

ply w ith the A buse a nd 1 17 N eg le ct

A ct in its pla ce m en t o f Ch il dr en , but F athe r doe s no t r ai se the que sti on o f 18 CY FD ’ s c om

pli an ce w iththe Abuse a nd N eg le ct A ct w ith re ga rd to the te rm ina tio n 19 of his pa re nta l r igh ts. N ev er the le ss, the Abuse a nd N eg le ct A ct pr ovi de s th at

“ [t ] he 20 te rm ina tio n of

pare nta l r igh ts in vo lv ing ac hil d su bj ec t t o th e fe de ra l [ IC W A ] sha ll 21 com ply with the re quirem ents of that act.” Sec tion 3 2A-4-28(E ). 41 1 r e tu rn edup on de m an d, but where paren tal rig hts ha ve not been terminated [

. ] ” 25 2 U

. S. C. § 1903 (1 )( i) ( em pha sis a dde d)

. A “ te rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts” m eans “ an y 3 ac t i onr e su l t i ng i n t he t e rm i na t i ono f t he p a r e nt

- c hi l d r e l a t i on sh i p[

. ] ” 2 5 U

. S. C. 4 § 190 3(1)(ii) ( internal quotatio n m arks om itted). B y t heir own ter m s, “ a foster c are 5 p l ac emen tp ro ce ed i n g s ee k s t o t emp o ra ri l y re m o v e an In d i an ch i l d fr o m t h e c h i l d ’s 6 pa re nt o r In dian c ust odi an w ith out te rm ina tin g par en ta l rig hts , w hil e a te rm ina tio n of 7 parental rights proceeding seeks to end the parent-child relationship.” Thompson v. 8 F a i r f ax C n t y . D e p ’ t o f F a m i l y Se rvs. , 7 47 S

. E

. 2d 8 38, 853 ( V a. Ct

. App. 201 3) 9 (alter a t i on , i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on m a rks , a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d)

. F a t he r di d no t se ek an 10 int er loc uto ry

appe al w ithr egard to any f ost er c ar e pla ce m en t of

Ch ildre n. Be ca

use 11 Father’ s appeal arises from a ter m ination of parental r ights proceeding, our inquiry 12 into Fathe r’s cl aim s m ust necessarily

focus on the allowable grounds upon which 13 Fat he r m ay

in va li da te th e te rm in at io n o f hi s p aren ta l ri gh ts un de r th e ICWA. 1 14 { 82} T he I CWA c ont ai ns a sta tut or y pr ovisi on tha t pr ovi de s r ec our se to a pa re nt 15 w hose pa re nta l rig hts to an In dian chil d have be ente rm ina te d. T ha t pr ovi sio n st at es :42

1 Any In dian child who is th e subjec t of any action for foster care 2 pla ce m en t or

te rm ina tio n of par en ta l rig hts und er [ s] ta te law , a ny

pare nt 3 or

I ndi anc ust odi anf

ro m w ho se custo dy

suc h c hil d w as r em ove d, a nd 4 the I ndi anc hil d’ s tri be m ay pe tit ion an y co urt of com pe te nt j ur isd ic tio n 5 to i nva lid at e suc h a ct ion upon a show ing that su cha ct ionvio la te d any 6 provisi on of [25 U. S. C. §§] 1911 , 1912, and 1913 of this title. 7 25 U

. S. C. § 19 14. A s athr es hol d m at te r, the pla in l an gua ge of thi s r em ed ia l pr ovi sio n 8 onl y pr ovi de s ac au se of a ct ionf or vio la tio ns o f thr ee se ct ion s of the I CWA

. S ec tio n 9 1914 doe s not

a llo w apare nt t o c ha lle nge ate rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts u

pon a 10 showing th at the term ination violated the ICWA’ s placem ent prefer ences enum erate d 11 in 2 5 U

. S. C. § 19 15. A cc or din gly , I c onc lud e tha t 25 U

. S. C. § 19 14 c ontro ls o ur 12 re vie w of

F athe r’ s a

ppe al , a nd w e cannot

r ev er se the dis tr ic t co urt’ s j udgm en t on ly 13 uponasho w ing tha t C hil dr en ’ s f ost er c ar e pla ce m en t vi ola te d th e IC W A ’ s pl ac em en t 14 pr ef er en ce s. O the r j ur isd ic tio ns h av e co nsi dere d th is que sti on and a lso ha ve 15 co nc lud ed

tha t the pr ovi sio ns o f 25 U

. S. C. § 19 14 d o no t a ppl y to vio la tions o f 16 Sect io n 1 91 5. S

e e D o e v . M

ann , 2 8 5 F. Su p p .2 d1 2 2 9 , 1 2 4 1 (N .D. Ca l . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ [I ]t 17 seem s clear from

the text of [25 U. S. C. §] 1914 that Congress intended to provide a 18 ca use of ac tio n onl y

f or vio la tio ns o f thr ee I CWA se ct ion s. ”) ; see a lso B. R. T. v. Ex ec. 19 D ir. of Soc

. Se rv . B d. , 391 N

. W

. 2d 5 94, 601 ( N

. D

. 198 6) ( sta tin g th at pe tit ionor 20 m oti on ch al le ngi ng “ or de r te rm ina tin g pare nta l r igh ts .

. . is anim pr ope r ve hic le f

or 21 ch al le ngi ng the a lle ge d vi ola tio n of the pla ce m en t pr efer en ce s m an da te d by [ 25 22 U

. S. C. Se ct ion191 5]

. ”) ; I n th e I n t e r e s t o f J

. W. , 528 N

. W

. 2d 6 57, 662 ( Io w a Ct

. App.43

1 1995 ) (“ T he re m ed ia l pr ovi sio ns of [2 5 U

. S. C. §] 1914 do not ap ply to v iol at ion s of 2 [2 5 U

. S. C. §] 191 5. ”) ; Sta te ex re l. Ju ve nil e D ep ’t ofM ult nom ah C nty

. v . W oodr uff , 3 816 P.2d 623 , 625 (O r. Ct

. App . 1991) (“ Failure to com ply with the foster c are 4 p l ac emen t prefer ences in § 1915 (b) is not a basis for invalidatin g a court order 5 term inating parental ri g h t s .” ). Ther efore, I disagree with the m aj ority that we can 6 reac h the issu e of Children’ s placem ent in this case. 7 { 83} It d o es s ee m t h at , t h eo re t i ca l l y, F at h er co u l d h av e ra i s ed t h e i s s u e o f C h i l d re n ’s 8 pla ce m en t un de r 25 U

. S. C. § 19 14 b y a lle gin g avio la tio n o f the “ ac tiv e ef fo rt s” 9 re qui re m en t ou tli ne d in25 U.S. C. § 19 12( d)

. I n othe r w or ds, F athe r co uld ha ve 10 posit ed that CYF D’ s failure to follo w the ICWA’ s placem ent prefer ences im pacted 11 his abil ity

to m ee t the r equire m en ts o f the D ep ar tm en t’ s r em ed ia l se rv ic es a nd 12 re habil ita tiv e pr ogr am s, thu s c onst itu tin g af ai lur e by CY FD to en ga ge in “ ac tiv e 13 effo rts

. . . de si gn edto pre v e n t t h e bre akup of t he Ind ia n fa m il y .] ” 2 5 U.S.C 14 § 19 12( d)

. T he dis tr ic t cour t, in its j udgm en t t er

m ina tin g F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts, 15 found “ that the De partm ent has m ade active efforts to com ply with the p re fe re n ces 16

. . . [ an d] the a ct iv e ef fo rt s r equir em en t [ of

S ec tio n 19 12( d) ] doe s no t a ppl y to 17 ex te nde d f

am ily [. ] ” O ur

c ourts h av e no t de cide d w he the r a fa ilure to en ga ge in 18 “ ac tiv e ef

fo rt s” m ay

se rv e as aba sis f

or inv al ida tin g ate rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts 19 j udgm en t un de r the I CWA , but that qu es ti on is n ot b ef

or e us h er e. F athe r doe s no t44

1 dir ec tly a tta ck the dis tr ic t co urt’ s fi ndi ng or ra ise a spe ci fi c ar gum en t tha t the “ ac tiv e 2 ef fo rt s” r equir em en t of 25 U. S. C. § 19 12( d) appl ie s to both hi s e xte nde d f am ily a nd 3 co m pli an ce w iththe IC W A’ s pl ac em en t pr ef er en ce s pu rs ua nt t o 25 U

. S. C. § 19 15. 4 T he m aj or ity

a lso not es tha t C Y FD ’ s “ ac tiv e ef fo rt s” are not

a t issue in this appe al , 5 albeit for slightly differe nt r easons, because Father did not adequately raise the issue. 6 Ma j or ity O pin ion¶

15. 7 { 84} Ac co rd i n g l y, fo r th e fo re g o i n g re as o n s , I wo u l d af fi rm t h e d i s t ri ct c o u rt ’s 8 j udgm en t du e to F athe r’ s f ai lur e to s ta te a n a de qua te ba sis under the I CWA f

or 9 inv al ida tio n of

the te rm ina tio n of

his pare nta l r igh ts.

10

____ __ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ 11 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e