Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 86.0

4 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

member.  See 25 U. S. C. §1903(4).  If the child resides on 
Indian tribal lands, then the Indian tribal court has juris-
diction.  §1911(a).  But, if the child resides within a State, 
ICWA requires state courts to transfer any proceedings to 
a tribal court, absent “good cause to the contrary,” upon pe-
tition by the child’s parent, custodian, or tribe.  §1911(b).

Even when the state court retains the proceedings, ICWA
replaces state law with a strict set of federal rules.  For ex-
ample, if the State fears that a child is suffering physical or
sexual abuse, it must clear a set of hurdles before placing 
the child in foster care or terminating the parent’s rights. 
§§1912(a)–(e).    If  the  parent  wishes  to  voluntarily  relin-
quish his or her rights and facilitate an adoption, the child’s 
tribe has a right to intervene “at any point” and to collater-
ally attack the court’s decree.  §§1911(c), 1914.  Moreover, 
it appears that tribes can enroll children unilaterally, with-
out the parent’s consent.  Accordingly, even if the biological 
parents, the child, the adoptive parents, and the court all 
agree on what is best for the child, the tribe can intervene
at the eleventh hour, without any consent from the parents
or child, and block the proceedings.  In fact, that is exactly 
what happened here—the children were unilaterally desig-
nated  as  tribal  members  by  tribes,  which  then  sought  to 
block adoptions that everyone else thought were best for the 
children  involved.    And,  even  though  some  of  those  adop-
tions have now been finalized, it appears that the tribes can 
collaterally  attack  them  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time.
§1914.

Besides  these  procedural  hurdles,  ICWA  dictates  the
preferences a court must adhere to when deciding where to 
place the child.  In the typical case, the primary considera-
tion  would  be  the  best  interests  of  that  child.    E.g.,  Tex. 
Fam. Code Ann. §153.002 (West 2014); American Law In-
stitute,  Principles  of  the  Law  of  Family  Dissolution  §2.02 
(2002);  Friederwitzer  v.  Friederwitzer,  55  N. Y.  2d  89,  92, 
432 N. E. 2d 765, 767 (1982); Karner v. McMahon, 433 Pa.