Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

6 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
This  case  arises  from  three  separate  child  custody  pro-

ceedings governed by ICWA. 

1 

A. L. M. was placed in foster care with Chad and Jennifer 
Brackeen when he was 10 months old.  Because his biolog-
ical mother is a member of the Navajo Nation and his bio-
logical father is a member of the Cherokee Nation, he falls
within  ICWA’s  definition  of  an  “Indian  child.”  Both  the 
Brackeens and A. L. M.’s biological parents live in Texas.

After A. L. M. had lived with the Brackeens for more than 
a  year,  they  sought  to  adopt  him.  A. L. M.’s  biological 
mother,  father,  and  grandmother  all  supported  the  adop-
tion.  The Navajo and Cherokee Nations did not.  Pursuant 
to  an  agreement  between  the  Tribes,  the  Navajo  Nation 
designated  A. L. M.  as  a  member  and  informed  the  state 
court that it had located a potential alternative placement 
with  nonrelative  tribal  members  living  in  New  Mexico. 
ICWA’s placement preferences ranked the proposed Navajo
family  ahead  of  non-Indian  families  like  the  Brackeens.
See §1915(a). 

The  Brackeens  tried  to  convince  the  state  court  that 
there  was  “good  cause”  to  deviate  from  ICWA’s  prefer-
ences.  They presented favorable testimony from A. L. M.’s 
court-appointed guardian and from a psychological expert 
who described the strong emotional bond between A. L. M. 
and  his  foster  parents.    A. L. M.’s  biological  parents  and 
grandmother  also  testified,  urging  the  court  to  allow 
A. L. M. to remain with the Brackeens, “ ‘the only parents 
[A. L. M.] knows.’ ”  App. 96.

The court denied the adoption petition, and the Texas De-
partment of Family and Protective Services announced its
intention  to  move  A. L. M.  from  the  Brackeens’  home  to 
New Mexico.  In response, the Brackeens obtained an emer-