Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

In re F.O., 2014 IL App (1st) 140954

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re F.O., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, PetitionerAppellee, v. Angela B., Respondent-Appellant).

District & No. First District, Fifth Division

Docket No. 1-14-0954

Filed November 21, 2014

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

In proceedings arising from a petition for the adjudication of wardship 

of a nine-year-old minor based on the claim that he was neglected and 

abused and subject to a substantial risk of physical injury at the hands 

of respondent, his mother, the juvenile court, in subsequent 

proceedings seeking to terminate respondent’s parental rights so that 

the minor could be adopted by the foster parents he had been living 

with following the adjudication of wardship, properly found that the 

minor was not an Indian child and was not subject to the Indian Child 

Welfare Act, since the juvenile court’s investigation of the 

information provided by respondent about her alleged Indian heritage 

received no confirmation from any tribal organizations that 

respondent’s allegations were recognized, the juvenile court’s 

investigation was proper under the Act, and its finding was affirmed.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 07-JA-865; the 

Hon. Maxwell Griffin, Jr., Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.
- 2 - 

Counsel on

Appeal

Abishi C. Cunningham, Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Suzanne A. 

Isaacson, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, 

Mary Needham, and Nancy Kisicki, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of 

counsel), for the People.

Robert F. Harris, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Kass A. Plain, of 

counsel), guardian ad litem.

Panel JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Palmer and Justice McBride concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 The instant appeal concerns one issue: Did the juvenile court properly determine that the 

minor, nine-year-old F.O., was not subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 

§ 1901 et seq. (2006)) prior to terminating respondent Angela B.’s parental rights? For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 Since the issues on appeal concern only compliance with the ICWA and respondent is not 

challenging the factual or legal basis of the termination of her parental rights,1

 we relate the 

facts of the termination proceedings briefly for context and set forth facts concerning 

respondent’s claimed Native American heritage in greater depth. 

¶ 4 I. Adjudication of Wardship 

¶ 5 On October 16, 2007, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, asking for 

F.O., a male minor born November 24, 2004, to be adjudicated a ward of the court; the State 

also filed a motion for temporary custody the same day. The adjudication petition claimed that 

F.O. was neglected due to an “environment *** injurious to his welfare” and was abused in 

that his parent or immediate family member “[c]reate[d] a substantial risk of physical injury to 

such minor by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause death, 

disfigurement, impairment of emotional health, or loss of impairment of any bodily function.”

¶ 6 The facts underlying both claims are the same. Respondent, F.O.’s mother, had two prior 

investigations for “substance misuse,” “environment injurious to health and welfare,” and 

 

1We note, however, that if respondent was to prevail on her claims, the termination of her parental 

rights would need to be conditionally reversed. 
- 3 - 

“substantial risk of physical injury.” On October 12, 2007, respondent “brought this minor’s 

sibling to Children’s Memorial Hospital. This minor’s sibling was deceased on arrival to the 

hospital. Medical personnel state that mother’s explanation as to when the child died is not 

consistent with the condition of the body.” Respondent admitted to a history of mental illness 

and that she threatened to kill herself and her children. “Mental health professionals” stated 

that respondent “has a mental health diagnosis of major depression with psychotic features, 

bi-polar and post traumatic stress disorder.” Respondent was psychiatrically hospitalized, and 

the whereabouts of F.O.’s father were unknown.2

¶ 7 Based on the facts alleged in the State’s petition for adjudication of wardship, on October 

16, 2007, the juvenile court found probable cause that F.O. was abused or neglected and that 

immediate and urgent necessity existed to support his removal from the home. The court 

granted temporary custody to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) 

guardianship administrator with the right to place F.O. 

¶ 8 On July 24, 2008, the juvenile court entered an adjudication order finding F.O. neglected 

due to “injurious environment,” in part because “the natural mother failed to recognize that the 

3 month old sibling of this minor was deceased for at least 2 hours while in her care and 

custody.” On August 21, 2008, the juvenile court entered a disposition order making F.O. a 

ward of the court and finding respondent unable for some reason other than financial 

circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline him. The court further found that 

reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of F.O. from his 

home. The court placed F.O. in the custody of a DCFS guardianship administrator with the 

right to place him. 

¶ 9 Respondent appealed, and we affirmed the juvenile court. In re F.O., No. 1-08-2495 (2008) 

(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). 

¶ 10 II. Termination Petition 

¶ 11 On July 10, 2012, the State filed a supplemental petition for the appointment of a guardian 

with the right to consent to adoption (termination petition). In its petition, the State alleged, 

inter alia, that respondent was unfit because she had “failed to make reasonable efforts to 

correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child from [her] and/or ha[d] 

failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to [her] within 9 months after 

the adjudication of neglect or abuse under the Juvenile Court Act, *** and/or within any 9 

month period after said finding,” in violation of section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (750 

ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2012)) and section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 

405/2-29 (West 2012)). Additionally, the petition alleged that it would be in F.O.’s best 

interest to appoint a guardian with the right to consent to his adoption because he had resided 

with his foster parent since October 2007, the foster parent wished to adopt F.O., and adoption 

by the foster parent would be in F.O.’s best interest.

¶ 12 On January 25, 2013, the parties came before the juvenile court for a trial on the State’s 

termination petition, which lasted over several court dates. Prior to the start of trial on April 3, 

2013, the court stated that it wished to “address the ICWA concern.” The State indicated that 

respondent had testified in 2008 that she had Native American heritage through several tribes, 

 

2

F.O.’s father is not a party to the instant appeal. Accordingly, we relate facts concerning F.O.’s 

father only where necessary to our consideration of the instant appeal. 
- 4 - 

but also testified that she was not an enrolled member of any tribe and did not have any 

enrolled family members. The court noted that although respondent had previously made 

comments suggesting that she was not aware of any family member who was enrolled in an 

Indian tribe, under the ICWA, “even though the family member may not be enrolled, the child 

may be eligible for enrollment.”

¶ 13 The court explained: 

“The standard for, or the requirements for eligibility in any particular Indian tribe, 

is dictated by that tribe, and it varies from tribe to tribe. Certain relations may make you 

eligible in one tribe for membership. Those same exact relations in another tribe might 

not make you eligible. 

That’s why we give notice to the tribe, so they can make a determination as to 

whether they would claim that the child in question, in this case [F.O.], is eligible and 

entitled to the protections of the ICWA.”

The court instructed respondent’s counsel that “I’m going to ask you to sit down with your 

client and specifically determine what the nature of her American Indian heritage is; okay? 

And then the parties will work together to confirm one way or the other what if anything was 

done to follow up.” The court stated that “before we conclude these proceedings, I’m going to 

make sure that we have complied with ICWA. It comes late in the game, but it’s–I think we 

need to do that.”

¶ 14 At that same court date, prior to presenting closing argument, respondent discussed her 

Native American heritage with the court: 

“RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: [T]he Court did direct me to talk to my client 

about the Native American Indian heritage and the issues that were brought up. I have 

spoken to my client in regards to those issues. 

 My client says that in January of 2008, she did specifically identify a number of 

tribes/nations of the–

 THE COURT: Yeah. So, what are they? 

RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: That would be the Apat–Athabascan 

Muskogeon–Muskogeon, and that is Choctaw. 

 Correct? 

 RESPONDENT: May I speak, Judge? 

 THE COURT: Sure. 

 RESPONDENT: Okay. As I have told counsel here, Choctaw is Muskogeon. 

Seminole Creek is Muskogeon. Mescalero Apache is Athabascan. 

 With Native Americans, you have a nation and then the name is the tribe; and due 

to the U.S. government and some politics, you know, so...

RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: What are the names?

 RESPONDENT: The Athabascan is Mescalero Apache. Seminole Creek is 

Muscogee. Choctaw, C-h-o-c-t-a-w, is Muskogeon. 

 THE COURT: Thank you. 

RESPONDENT: I’d just like to make that clear again, please. Sorry.
- 5 - 

THE COURT: That’s all right. But what are you telling me about this? Are 

you–You’re not telling me you belong to any of those tribes. You have relatives that 

did? 

 RESPONDENT: No. I belong to the tribes. Meaning, by blood.”

Respondent later explained further: 

“I am an intertribal Native American. My mother and father have one tribe in 

common, which is Seminole Creek. My father’s side is Choctaw Seminole Creek. My 

mother’s side is Athabascan, which is the Mescalero Apache and also Seminole Creek, 

so I am more Seminole Creek than I am of the Choctaw and the Apache.”

Respondent stated that her mother had her enrollment card, but that since her mother had 

abandoned her, respondent did not have it; respondent’s mother was not enrolled, but 

respondent’s father enrolled her on his side. She confirmed that the authorities would be able to 

give the tribe her name to verify enrollment, but stated that “[y]ou’ll have to go to the 

Oklahoma side. *** Durant, Oklahoma.”

¶ 15 III. ICWA Compliance 

¶ 16 On April 23, 2013, the parties came before the court for a status hearing on, inter alia, 

compliance with the ICWA. The State was still investigating whether it had taken any action 

concerning the ICWA earlier in the proceedings, but indicated that “[s]ince the last court date, 

we’ve sent notice to all the tribes that [respondent] identified at trial. We’ve not received 

anything yet.” The court asked which tribes were sent notice, and the prosecutor responded:

“Apache, Choctaw, Seminole Creek, Muscogee, and we’ve tried Athabascan as 

well, but it’s not–it doesn’t seem[ ] to be recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs so 

we also did a notice with tribal affiliation unknown which my understanding is that 

when we do that, the Bureau of Indian[ ] Affairs checks an individual’s–the 

individual’s name that we give for any tribal affiliation et al.”

The prosecutor further indicated that the searches were proceeding under the names of 

respondent and respondent’s parents.

¶ 17 At a status hearing on May 15, 2013, the prosecutor indicated that she had reviewed the 

State’s files and had determined that notice was given to several Native American tribes when 

the case began in 2008, and she presented six exhibits in support. People’s group exhibit No. 1 

was 18 return receipts from 2008 and was admitted into evidence without objection. People’s 

group exhibit No. 2 was 15 letters to the State’s Attorney’s office from various tribes in 

response to the notices sent out by the State in 2008, all of which stated that F.O. was not a 

member or not eligible for membership, and was admitted into evidence without objection. 

Respondent’s counsel noted for the record that some of the letters had the wrong year of birth 

for F.O., with the letters stating “11/29/94” as the date of birth instead of 2004, the actual year 

of F.O.’s birth. People’s group exhibit No. 3 was 11 return receipts for notices sent out by the 

State in 2013 and was admitted without objection. People’s group exhibit No. 4 was a letter

received by the State’s Attorney’s office from the Mescalero Apache tribe, dated April 29, 

2013, and was admitted without objection. People’s group exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 were two 

envelopes sent to F.O.’s father containing copies of the ICWA notices and were admitted 

without objection. 
- 6 - 

¶ 18 People’s group exhibit No. 1, as noted, contained 18 return receipts from 2008. The return 

receipts indicated that the State had sent notices to: (1) the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Choctaw 

Agency; (2) the Yavapai-Apache Community Council; (3) the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; 

(4) the Tonto Apache Tribal Council; (5) the Mescalero Apache Tribe; (6) the Fort Apache 

Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs; (7) the Yavapai/Apache Nation; (8) the Jicarilla Apache 

Nation; (9) the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; (10) the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; (11) 

the Muscogee (Creek) Nation; (12) the White Mountain Apache Tribal Council; (13) the 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; (14) the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; (15) the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, Office of Human Services; and (16), (17), and (18) the Midwest Region 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs.3

¶ 19 People’s group exhibit No. 2, as noted, contained 15 letters to the State’s Attorney’s office. 

A letter dated February 21, 2008, from the Jena Band of Choctaw stated that F.O. and his 

relatives were not members and were not eligible for membership. 

¶ 20 A letter dated March 31, 2008, from the Mescalero Apache Tribe stated that according to 

its records, respondent was not a member of the tribe. Accordingly, F.O. did not meet the 

necessary requirements to become eligible for enrollment or to be recognized with the tribe. 

The letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as “11/24/94.”

¶ 21 A letter dated March 31, 2008, from the Jicarilla Apache Nation stated that the nation’s 

record showed a lack of valid proof that there was any association with the nation. Based on 

that information, F.O. was not eligible for enrollment. The letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as 

“11/24/94.”

¶ 22 A letter dated February 25, 2008, from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation stated that F.O. could 

not be traced in the nation’s tribal records “through the adult relatives listed.” Accordingly, 

F.O. would not be considered an Indian child with relation to the nation. The letter listed F.O.’s 

date of birth as “11-24-94.”

¶ 23 A letter dated February 21, 2008, from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma stated that the 

nation was “unable to establish Indian heritage,” so the ICWA did not apply. The letter 

indicated that “all records are pulled by maiden names and date of birth.” The letter further 

stated that, pursuant to the Constitution of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, “[t]he Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma shall consist of all Choctaw Indians by blood whose names appear on the 

final rolls of the Choctaw Nation *** and their lineal descendants.” The letter listed F.O.’s date 

of birth as “11-24-94.”

¶ 24 A letter dated February 19, 2008, from the White Mountain Apache Tribe stated that 

neither F.O. nor his parents were enrolled members of the tribe, nor were they eligible to 

become members of the tribe. The letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as “11/24/1994.”

¶ 25 A letter dated February 19, 2008, from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians stated that 

neither F.O. nor either of his parents was enrolled with the tribe or eligible for enrollment. The 

letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as “11/24/1994.”

¶ 26 A letter dated February 14, 2008, from the Yavapai/Apache Nation stated that F.O.’s 

parents were not enrolled members of the nation. Accordingly, F.O. was not eligible for 

enrollment by the nation. The letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as “11/24/94.”

 

3There were three return receipts with different tracking numbers and different receipt dates, all 

sent to the same office. 
- 7 - 

¶ 27 A letter dated February 13, 2008, from the Tonto Apache Tribe stated that F.O. was not 

enrolled with the tribe, nor was he eligible for enrollment. Additionally, there was no 

indication of ancestral history with the tribe. 

¶ 28 A letter dated April 28, 2008, from the Fort Sill Apache Tribe stated that F.O. was not 

eligible for tribal membership as “none of the family members whom you identified can be 

linked to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe.” The letter listed F.O.’s date of birth as “11/24/94.”

¶ 29 People’s group exhibit No. 3, as noted, contained 11 return receipts from 2013. The return 

receipts indicated that the State had sent notices to: (1) the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; (2) the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation; (3) the Fort Apache Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs; (4) the 

Mescalero Apache Tribe; (5) the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; (6) the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Choctaw Agency; (7) the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; (8) the Mississippi Band of 

Choctaw Indians; (9) the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; and (10) and (11) respondent.4

¶ 30 People’s group exhibit No. 4, as noted, consisted of a letter dated April 29, 2013, from the 

Mescalero Apache Tribe. The letter stated that respondent and respondent’s parents were not 

members of the Mescalero Apache Tribe and, therefore, F.O. did not meet the necessary 

requirements needed to become eligible for enrollment or recognized as a member of the 

Mescalero Apache Tribe. The letter also stated that the Mescalero Apache Tribe did not wish 

to intervene through court proceedings on the matter. 

¶ 31 At a July 3, 2013, status hearing, two additional return receipts and a letter were admitted 

into evidence without objection. However, the State indicated that a recent letter from the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation indicated that respondent was eligible for enrollment and F.O. 

would be considered an Indian child, but due to an incorrect date on the letter, the State had 

“reached out” to the tribe to clarify the issue. 

¶ 32 The return receipts admitted into evidence showed that two notices had been sent to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Human Services. The letter admitted into evidence was 

dated May 13, 2013, and was from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. The letter stated 

that F.O., respondent, and respondent’s parents were not enrolled members of the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians and were not eligible for enrollment with the tribe. The letter 

suggested that “[y]ou may want to check with the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.”

¶ 33 At a July 11, 2013, status hearing, the State informed the court that it had been in contact 

with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and it was the State’s position that the ICWA applied. The 

parties agreed that there was no need to reopen the proofs in the unfitness portion of the 

termination proceedings and that they would reargue the issue in light of the higher standard of 

proof required in ICWA cases. 

¶ 34 On August 9, 2013, the parties came before the court to reargue the issue of respondent’s 

fitness in light of the ICWA standard. However, the State indicated that since the last court 

date, there had been additional ICWA developments. The public guardian stated that she had 

contacted the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and they reran the records and determined that neither 

respondent nor F.O. was enrolled or eligible for enrollment with the nation.5 Three exhibits 

were entered into evidence. 

 

4There were two return receipts with different tracking numbers and different delivery dates, both 

sent to respondent at the same address. 

5The record indicates that an individual with the same name as respondent, but a different birthdate, 

was an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, leading to the confusion. Once respondent’s 
- 8 - 

¶ 35 First, a letter dated July 3, 2013, from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation stated that F.O. “can 

be traced within our tribal citizenship enrollment or is eligible for enrollment through the 

immediate family member [respondent] (bio-mother).” The letter stated that F.O. would be 

considered an “ ‘Indian child’ ” with regard to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but that the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation would not intervene in the matter. 

¶ 36 Next, a letter dated August 8, 2013, from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation stated that based on 

“additional information recently provided,” F.O. “cannot be traced within our tribal records.” 

The letter explained that the “related immediate family members,” respondent and F.O.’s 

father, were not found to be enrolled members. The letter stated that F.O. would not be 

considered an “ ‘Indian child[ ]’ ” in relation to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation was not empowered to intervene in the matter. 

¶ 37 Finally, a letter dated July 8, 2013, from the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma stated that F.O.’s 

name was submitted to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma enrollment office for confirmation of 

enrollment or eligibility, and the enrollment office concluded that “the child and members 

listed on the ancestral chart are not located in the enrollment records.” The letter explained that 

“[i]n order to be eligible for enrollment, a blood quantum of one-eighth (1/8) degree is 

required. For the child to be eligible, at least one of the great-grandparents must be or must 

have been enrolled with a blood quantum of four-fourths (4/4) degree.” The letter concluded 

that “[a]dditional notice to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare [Program] 

regarding this child will not be necessary.”

¶ 38 The matter was continued until August 19, 2013. On that date, respondent’s attorney stated 

that “I have not been able to obtain any information through my conversations that ICWA 

would apply at this point besides the representations of my client that she has made on the 

record.” The public guardian asked the court whether it would be willing to make a finding that 

ICWA did not apply, but the court responded that “I’m still not willing to make a finding. I’m 

not going to put it in order form. I don’t do that in any other case, and they’re not maintaining 

that it does. *** So, as I’ve said on the record, at this point in time based on the information we 

have, there’s no indication that ICWA applies. The Court will use the burden of proof reflected 

in the Juvenile Court Act in making determinations on this proceeding.”

¶ 39 On December 30, 2013, the parties came before the juvenile court for the court’s ruling on 

the unfitness portion of the termination proceedings. The court summarized the history of the 

proceedings, noting that after testimony had concluded at the termination trial, there was 

concern as to whether the ICWA applied and “the Court wanted to be clear and give the mother 

every benefit of the doubt as to whether we could establish her claim to American Indian 

heritage.” After inquiring with respondent and various tribes and waiting for responses, “we 

were finally at a point where the Court was comfortable saying that appropriate efforts had 

been made to establish or rule out this case and this child falling under the Indian Child 

Welfare Act. And we were not able to show that, that it applies.”

¶ 40 On March 11, 2014, the juvenile court entered an order finding by clear and convincing 

evidence that respondent was unfit due to failure to make reasonable progress to correct the 

conditions that were the basis of the removal during five nine-month periods: July 25, 2008, 

through April 25, 2009; April 26, 2009, through January 26, 2010; January 26, 2010, through 

 

birthdate was provided, the nation determined that respondent was not an enrolled member of the 

nation. 
- 9 - 

September 27, 20106; September 28, 2010, through June 28, 2011; and June 28, 2011, though 

March 29, 2012. The court further found that it was in F.O.’s best interest to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights. Accordingly, the court ordered the parental rights of respondent 

terminated. This appeal follows. 

¶ 41 ANALYSIS 

¶ 42 On appeal, respondent claims that the juvenile court did not properly determine whether 

F.O. was an Indian child subject to the ICWA and, therefore, the order finding her unfit and 

terminating her parental rights must be reversed and the cause remanded for a proper ICWA 

determination. 

¶ 43 I. ICWA 

¶ 44 Under the ICWA, “[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 foster care 

placement of, or 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. If the identity or location of the 

parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the 

Secretary [of the Interior] in like manner ***.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2006). “ ‘Indian child’ ” 

is further 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) (2006). 

¶ 45 “While the definition speaks in terms of the child being a ‘member’ of a tribe or the 

biological child of a ‘member’ of a tribe, the absence of evidence of the child’s or child’s 

parent’s enrollment alone may not be determinative of whether the child or parent is a member 

of a tribe.” In re T.A., 378 Ill. App. 3d 1083, 1089 (2008). “Tribes use a wide range of 

membership criteria, and some tribes may automatically include a person as a member if the 

person is a descendant of a tribe member.” In re T.A., 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1090. “The party 

asserting the applicability of the [ICWA] has the burden of producing sufficient evidence for 

the court to determine if the child is an Indian child.” In re T.A., 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1090. 

¶ 46 If a child is subject to the ICWA, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian child’s 

tribe, the termination proceeding is to be transferred to the tribal court unless there is good 

cause to the contrary or the tribe declines jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) (2006). 

Additionally, if a child is subject to the ICWA, “[n]o termination of parental rights may be 

ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a 

reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody 

of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical 

damage to the child.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (2006). “[I]f a court fails to provide notice as 

required by section 1912 of the [ICWA], the proper remedy is to reverse the trial court’s orders 

concerning foster care placement or termination of parental rights and begin the proceedings 

anew in compliance with the requirements of the [ICWA].” In re K.T., 2013 IL App (3d) 

120969, ¶ 15. 

 

6This is actually an eight-month period, not a nine-month period. 
- 10 - 

¶ 47 Whether the juvenile court was required to give notice to an Indian tribe under the ICWA 

and the sufficiency of such notice are issues of statutory interpretation, which we review 

de novo. In re K.T., 2013 IL App (3d) 120969, ¶ 9; In re N.L., 2014 IL App (3d) 140172, ¶ 31. 

De novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. 

Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578 (2011). 

¶ 48 II. Notice to Tribes 

¶ 49 In the case at bar, respondent argues that the juvenile court did not comply with the ICWA 

because (1) there was no copy of the notice sent by the State contained in the record on appeal, 

and (2) there was a “lack of conclusiveness [to] the determination that F.O. was not an Indian 

child subject to ICWA, especially in the case of Seminole and possibly in the cases of Choctaw 

and the two Oklahoma Apache tribes as well.” We do not find respondent’s arguments 

persuasive. 

¶ 50 First, respondent relies on several cases in which courts have found that lack of sufficient 

documentation in the record led to reversal of the termination proceedings. For instance, in 

In re K.T., 2013 IL App (3d) 120969, ¶ 14, the Third District Appellate Court, relying on a 

Michigan Supreme Court case, held that “[i]n order to establish compliance with the [ICWA’s] 

notice provision, trial courts have a duty to ensure that the record includes, at a minimum, (1) 

the original or a copy of the actual notice sent by registered mail pursuant to section 1912, and 

(2) the original or a legible copy of the return receipt or other proof of service.” See also In re 

N.L., 2014 IL App (3d) 140172, ¶ 34 (citing In re K.T., 2013 IL App (3d) 120969, ¶ 14). 

However, in the cases respondent cites, there was no question that the child was an Indian child 

subject to the ICWA. See In re K.T., 2013 IL App (3d) 120969, ¶ 16 (noting that “there is no 

dispute that K.T. is an ‘Indian child,’ ” with evidence including a membership card); In re N.L., 

2014 IL App (3d) 140172, ¶ 5 (at the dispositional hearing, a social history report was 

submitted to the juvenile court indicating that the father “is a registered member of the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, White Earth Reservation”).

¶ 51 In the case at bar, however, as respondent’s counsel acknowledged before the juvenile 

court, the only evidence that F.O. might be an Indian child came from respondent’s claim of 

Native American heritage. Our courts have, in the past, concluded that such claims are not 

necessarily sufficient to trigger the ICWA’s notice requirements. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 

206 (2001) (concluding that “the brief references in the record to [the father’s] unsubstantiated 

statements concerning his alleged Indian heritage were simply insufficient to implicate the 

provisions of the ICWA” and that “[t]he circuit court had no reason to believe that C.N. may be 

an Indian child and no reason to raise the issue”); In re Anaya J.G., 403 Ill. App. 3d 875, 

881-82 (2010) (finding that the “bare assertions without any evidence” that the parents had 

relatives with Indian blood “did not give the circuit court reason to know that Anaya is an 

Indian child” and accordingly finding that “the circuit court did not err in failing to notify the 

Cherokee tribe of the proceeding and its right to intervene”); In re T.A., 378 Ill. App. 3d 1083, 

1091 (2008) (two DCFS reports that the mother had indicated she was of Native American 

descent “were insufficient to require the trial court to make a determination on the record 

whether J.A. was an Indian child,” noting that “[n]o evidence or testimony suggests that either 

[the mother] or J.A. was even eligible for membership”).

¶ 52 Furthermore, even if the ICWA’s notice requirements were triggered, we cannot find that 

the absence of the actual notices sent to the tribes establishes a lack of compliance with the 
- 11 - 

ICWA. As set forth in detail in the facts, the record contains numerous return receipts for the 

notices sent, as well as the tribes’ responses to the State’s letters. There is no question that 

these notices were sent and that the tribes responded; moreover, most of the letters in return 

reference the information sent to the tribe (for instance, F.O.’s name and date of birth, as well 

as those of respondent and her parents). On the facts before us, finding that the absence of the 

initial piece of paper sent to the tribes establishes noncompliance would be exalting form over 

substance. 

¶ 53 We turn, then, to the determination of whether there was noncompliance in the “lack of 

conclusiveness [to] the determination that F.O. was not an Indian child subject to ICWA, 

especially in the case of Seminole and possibly in the cases of Choctaw and the two Oklahoma 

Apache tribes as well.” When asked about her tribal affiliations, respondent made two 

statements to the juvenile court. First, she stated: “As I have told counsel here, Choctaw is 

Muskogeon. Seminole Creek is Muskogeon. Mescalero Apache is Athabascan.” Later, she 

stated: “I am an intertribal Native American. My mother and father have one tribe in common, 

which is Seminole Creek. My father’s side is Choctaw Seminole Creek. My mother’s side is 

Athabascan, which is the Mescalero Apache and also Seminole Creek, so I am more Seminole 

Creek than I am of the Choctaw and the Apache.”

¶ 54 With regard to the Seminole, we must first address respondent’s motion to strike a footnote 

and the appendix from the State’s brief, which we have taken with the case and which concerns 

the Seminole. Footnote 6 of the State’s brief states: “[O]n August 4, 2014, the State’s 

Attorney’s Office sent an inquiry to the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma concerning [F.O.] and

respondent. In a letter dated August 5, 2014, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma stated that 

[F.O.] and his parents are not enrolled members of the Seminole Nation, that [F.O.] will not be 

considered an Indian child under ICWA, and that the Seminole Nation does not wish to 

intervene in the state court proceedings. See Appendix.” The appendix, in turn, contains copies 

of the correspondence. In her motion, respondent argues that the footnote and the appendix 

must be stricken, since Illinois Supreme Court Rule 342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005), requires that an 

appendix include “materials from the record” and the materials in the State’s appendix were 

not even in existence at the time the termination order was entered. We agree with respondent 

that this information should not have been included in the appendix or in the State’s brief, even 

as a footnote. However, we have not considered it in reaching our decision and therefore deny 

respondent’s motion to strike as moot.

¶ 55 Turning to the merits of respondent’s argument concerning the Seminole, respondent 

admits that she stated that she had “Seminole Creek” heritage and that “Seminole Creek” is not 

a tribe recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the BIA). However, she nevertheless claims 

that notices should have been sent to the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of 

Oklahoma. We do not find this argument persuasive. As the public guardian notes, “[t]he party 

asserting the applicability of the [ICWA] has the burden of producing sufficient evidence for 

the court to determine if the child is an Indian child.” In re T.A., 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1090. Here, 

as the party asserting the applicability of the ICWA, respondent had the burden of sufficiently 

identifying the tribes to which she was claiming affiliation, and she did not identify either the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida or the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma but instead repeatedly referred 

to “Seminole Creek.” Additionally, the State sent notices to the BIA, as is the proper procedure 
- 12 - 

when the tribe is not one which is recognized by the BIA.7 See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2006) (“If 

the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, 

such notice shall be given to the Secretary [of the Interior] in like manner ***.”). Thus, the 

State complied with its duties under the ICWA and we find no basis for reversal. 

¶ 56 Next, with respect to the Choctaw, respondent claims that the 2008 letter from the Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma gives inaccurate information for F.O., including his date of birth and 

surname. She acknowledges a 2013 letter from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, but 

appears to claim that the lack of a 2013 letter from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requires 

reversal. We do not find this argument persuasive. 

¶ 57 As noted, a letter dated February 21, 2008, from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma stated 

that the nation was “unable to establish Indian heritage,” so the ICWA did not apply. The letter 

indicated that “all records are pulled by maiden names and date of birth.”8

 The letter further 

stated that, pursuant to the Constitution of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, “[t]he Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma shall consist of all Choctaw Indians by blood whose names appear on the 

final rolls of the Choctaw Nation *** and their lineal descendants.” There was a return receipt 

for a 2013 notice sent to the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, but the letter from the nation is not 

included in the record on appeal. While the 2008 letter listed incorrect information for F.O., the 

State indicated to the juvenile court that a copy of the termination petition (with the accurate 

information) was sent along with the notices to the tribes. Thus, the nation had the correct 

information in its possession. Furthermore, the nation indicated that it is respondent’s

information that is relevant to determining membership and not F.O.’s information (this was 

also the case for most of the tribes). As explained in its letter, the nation was searching for 

“Indian heritage” through a search for respondent’s maiden name and birth date. There is no 

indication that respondent’s information was incorrect.9

 Thus, there is no basis for reversal 

with regard to respondent’s Choctaw argument. See In re Trever I., 2009 ME 59, ¶ 22 n.5, 973 

A.2d 752 (rejecting a similar argument about the absence of the child’s birth date from the 

ICWA notice, noting that “the critical information needed to begin to determine Trever’s status 

as an ‘Indian child’ is not Trever’s birth date but the father’s relationship information”).

¶ 58 Finally, with respect to the Apache, respondent takes issue with the notification as to the 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; she does not 

challenge the notification to the Mescalero Apache Tribe. However, respondent specifically 

stated that she was Mescalero Apache. Thus, the notification to that tribe was sufficient to 

comply with the ICWA and notification to the other two tribes was not necessary. 

¶ 59 Furthermore, the State contacted both the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the Fort Sill 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. A letter dated July 8, 2013, from the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

 

7We also note that on April 23, 2013, the State informed the juvenile court that a notice had been 

sent to “Seminole Creek.” However, no return receipt or letter is included in the record on appeal other 

than to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. 

8

It is not entirely clear from the letter whether it is the mother’s date of birth or the child’s date of 

birth that is searched for. However, as the search is for lineal descendants of members, the mother’s 

maiden name and her date of birth would make the most sense. 

9While respondent claims that the nation’s response “does not mention” her, again, the State 

indicated that it sent the termination petition along with the notice. Thus, the nation would have had 

respondent’s information from both the notice and the petition.
- 13 - 

stated that F.O.’s name was submitted to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma enrollment office for 

confirmation of enrollment or eligibility, and the enrollment office concluded that “the child 

and members listed on the ancestral chart are not located in the enrollment records.” The letter 

explained that “[i]n order to be eligible for enrollment, a blood quantum of one-eighth (1/8) 

degree is required. For the child to be eligible, at least one of the great-grandparents must be or 

must have been enrolled with a blood quantum of four-fourths (4/4) degree.” The letter 

concluded that “[a]dditional notice to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare 

[Program] regarding this child will not be necessary.” Respondent acknowledges this letter but 

claims that “if [F.O.] is 1/8 Oklahoma Apache (with a great-grandparent enrolled), he is 

eligible. The possibility of eligibility does not appear to be foreclosed based on this letter.” 

However, respondent never claimed that F.O. had a great-grandparent enrolled in the Apache 

Tribe of Oklahoma and does not do so on appeal. Accordingly, we do not find this argument 

persuasive. 

¶ 60 Additionally, a letter dated April 28, 2008, from the Fort Sill Apache Tribe stated that F.O. 

was not eligible for tribal membership as “none of the family members whom you identified 

can be linked to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe.” There was a return receipt for a 2013 notice sent to 

the tribe, but the letter from the tribe is not included in the record on appeal. Respondent’s 

arguments concerning the 2008 letter are identical to the arguments she makes with respect to 

the Choctaw, and we similarly find them unpersuasive. 

¶ 61 CONCLUSION 

¶ 62 For the reasons set forth above, we find that the juvenile court did not err in determining 

that F.O. was not an Indian child subject to the ICWA. 

¶ 63 Affirmed.