Opinion ID: 3032694
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: public law 280 and icwa precedent

Text: The federal courts have interpreted ICWA on rare occasions, and while some courts have danced seductively close to the issue, none has ever directly addressed either Public Law 280 jurisdiction over child custody proceedings or whether there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary child custody proceedings in the context of Public Law DOE v. MANN 8441 280. More specifically, no court has addressed the California child dependency statute. The Supreme Court’s only case interpreting ICWA, Holyfield, included a footnote that referenced the “existing Federal law” proviso in § 1911(a): Section 1911(a) does not apply “where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law.” This proviso would appear to refer to Pub.L. 280, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, which allows States under certain conditions to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction on the reservations. Title 25 U.S.C. § 1918 permits a tribe in that situation to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings upon petition to the Secretary of the Interior. The State of Mississippi has never asserted jurisdiction over the Choctaw Reservation under Public Law 280. 490 U.S. at 42 n.16. This passing reference does not resolve whether California’s child dependency proceedings fall within the state’s Public Law 280 criminal or civil jurisdiction. Not only is Mississippi not a Public Law 280 state, but the child custody proceeding at issue in Holyfield was a voluntary adoption initiated by the Indian parents of Indian twins. Id. at 37-38. Holyfield did not involve, as this case does, an involuntary termination of an Indian’s parental rights. Similar to the Holyfield footnote, the Ninth Circuit has made a broad, but ultimately non-dispositive, statement about the interplay between § 1911(a) and Public Law 280. See Native Village of Venetie I, 944 F.2d at 555 (noting that tribes in Public Law 280 states can invoke exclusive jurisdiction under § 1911 only after petitioning the Secretary of Interior). Like Holyfield, Native Village of Venetie I involved a voluntary, private adoption and the court limited its discussion of the expanse of Public Law 280’s civil jurisdiction to private 8442 DOE v. MANN adoption cases. Id. at 560 (“It is not disputed that private adoption cases are included within this transfer of civil jurisdiction [in Public Law 280] from the federal government to the states.”) (emphasis added)). States that have considered the interplay between Public Law 280 and a state’s authority to enforce child dependency laws in Indian country have arrived at conflicting results. On one side, the Wisconsin Attorney General concluded that involuntary child custody proceedings lie outside Wisconsin’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction because they “involve some aspect of the state’s regulatory jurisdiction.” 70 Op. Att’y Gen. Wis. 237 (1981), 1981 Wisc. AG LEXIS 7, , 18-20. The Attorney General contrasted voluntary proceedings, which are “not between the state and an individual, but rather primarily involve[ ] only private persons.” Id. at . No other source has adopted this voluntary versus involuntary custody analysis.17 In contrast, Washington and Idaho, two nonmandatory Public Law 280 states, have long identified child dependency proceedings as a subject matter within their Public Law 280 jurisdiction. See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 465 n.1 (1979) (quoting Washington’s 1963 law asserting Public Law 280 jurisdiction);18 State v. George, 905 P.2d 626, 629 (Idaho 1995) (quoting Idaho’s 1963 law asserting Public Law 280 jurisdiction).19 20 17 The Ninth Circuit cited the Wisconsin Attorney General’s opinion favorably in Native Village of Venetie I, although for the separate proposition that Public Law 280 jurisdiction only provides states with “concurrent” jurisdiction over private adoption cases, not “exclusive” jurisdiction. Native Village of Venetie I, 944 F.2d at 561. 18 Washington’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction remains codified today at Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010 (2005) and includes “[d]omestic relations,” “[a]doption proceedings,” and “dependent children.” Id. at §§ (3), (6) and (7). 19 Idaho’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction remains codified today at Idaho Code § 67-5101 (2004) and includes “Dependent, neglected and abused children.” Id. at § C. 20 Both states asserted jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings in DOE v. MANN 8443 In sum, we navigate the question whether California properly exercised jurisdiction over Jane’s dependency proceedings without much of a compass.