Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

4 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

nate parental rights or remove an Indian child from an un-
safe  environment  must  first  “satisfy  the  court  that  active 
efforts have been made to provide remedial services and re-
habilitative  programs  designed  to  prevent  the  breakup  of
the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuc-
cessful.”  §1912(d).  Even then, the court cannot order a fos-
ter care placement unless it finds “by clear and convincing
evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, 
that the continued custody of the child by the parent or In-
dian  custodian  is  likely  to  result  in  serious  emotional  or 
physical damage to the child.”  §1912(e).  To terminate pa-
rental  rights,  the  court  must  make  the  same  finding  “be-
yond a reasonable doubt.”  §1912(f ).

The Act applies to voluntary proceedings too.  Relinquish-
ing a child temporarily (to foster care) or permanently (to 
adoption) is a grave act, and a state court must ensure that 
a  consenting  parent  or  custodian  knows  and  understands 
“the terms and consequences.”  §1913(a).  Notably, a biolog-
ical parent who voluntarily gives up an Indian child cannot 
necessarily  choose  the  child’s  foster  or  adoptive  parents. 
The child’s tribe has “a right to intervene at any point in [a]
proceeding” to place a child in foster care or terminate pa-
rental  rights,  as  well  as  a  right  to  collaterally  attack  the 
state court’s decree.  §§1911(c), 1914.  As a result, the tribe 
can  sometimes  enforce  ICWA’s  placement  preferences 
against  the  wishes of one or  both  biological parents,  even 
after the child is living with a new family.  See Mississippi 
Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 49–52 
(1989).

ICWA’s  placement  preferences,  which  apply  to  all  cus-
tody  proceedings  involving  Indian  children,  are  hierar-
chical: State courts may only place the child with someone
in a lower-ranked group when there is no available place-
ment in a higher-ranked group.  For adoption, “a preference 
shall  be  given”  to  placements  with  “(1)  a  member  of  the
child’s  extended  family;  (2)  other  members  of  the  Indian