Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_35_issue_1?pg=42
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:56:14+00:00

Document:
136 See In re Baby Girl B., 67 P.3d at 365–66; see Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 34–37 (1989).
137 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (2012); see also id. § 1912(d) (requiring that “active efforts” must have been made “to prevent the breakup of the Indian family”). The Court concluded that like “continued custody,” “breakup of the Indian family” indicates that there must be a relationship between the unwed Indian father and the child for the court to evaluate. Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2560 (majority opinion).
138 See In re Baby Girl B., 67 P.3d at 365–66; Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2571 (Breyer, J., concurring).
139 See In re Baby Girl B., 67 P.3d at 366; Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2571 (Breyer, J., concurring); id. at 2578 n. 8 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); cf. id. at 2558–59 (majority opinion) (relying on the father’s indication that he relinquished his parental rights among other facts to conclude that the father did not have pre-existing custody, which suggests that where a father does not take such an affirmative step, pre-existing custody may exist and the ICWA may apply).
140 See, e.g., In re Adoption of Baade, 462 N. W.2d 485, 490 (S.D. 1990).
142 Id. (referring to the terms in the ICWA). Section 1903( 4) of the ICWA defines an “Indian child” 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) (2012). Section 1903( 1) further provides that a custody proceeding includes: foster care placements, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placements, and adoptive placements. 25 U.S.C. § 1903( 1) (defining further foster care placement, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, and adoptive placement as individual terms).
143 Claymore v. Serr, 405 N. W.2d 650, 654 (S.D. 1987).
144 Id. at 653–54. In defining family, the South Dakota Supreme Court applied a narrow definition of family. The court held that family within the context of the ICWA, was restricted to the nuclear family. Id. at 653. This reasoning fails to recognize the emphasis Congress placed on tribal culture, where an Indian child may have a close relationship with extended family members, who could provide care to the child while maintaining the child’s relationship with the tribal community. By considering testimony regarding the support extended families in tribes provide to raise children, Congress sought to acknowledge tribes’ interests in their children and preserve tribes’ existence as self-governing communities. See 1977 Hearings, supra note 31, at 316 (“For example, Indian extended families are far larger than non-Indian nuclear families. An Indian child may have scores of, perhaps more than a hundred, relatives who are counted as close, responsible members of the family.”); see also Amici Curiae Brief, supra note 20, at 10–11 (arguing the legislative history of the ICWA demonstrates Congress’s concern for familial relationships within tribes and that Congress intended to protect Indian children’s relationships with their tribes through the ICWA).
145 In re Baade, 462 N. W.2d at 489–90; see Lewerenz & McCoy, supra note 13 at 717–22 (providing a more-thorough explanation of several state courts’ applications of Holyfield to reject the existing Indian family doctrine in favor of a more broad application of the ICWA); see Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 34–37. In Holyfield, the Supreme Court concluded that “the protection of th[e] tribal interest is at the core of the ICWA, which recognizes that the tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct from but on a parity with the interest of the parents.” Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 52. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon hearings and evidence before Congress that emphasized the impact the removal of Indian children had on tribes in their ability to continue as self-governing entities. The Court reasoned that through the ICWA, Congress intended to protect tribal interests in their children alongside those of the Indian family and child. See id. at 32–37.

References: v. 
 § 1912
 § 1912
 § 1903
 § 1903
 v. 
 v.