Opinion ID: 2747286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Best Interests Consideration Contravenes

Text: ted States Supreme Court Precedent The Supreme Court of United States has noted that 25 U.S.C. 1 § 1911 is a jurisdict 1 statute. HoI field, 490 U.S. at 36. As such, Section 1911(b) only allows a state court to determine who should make the [ ter care or parental rights] determination 1 HoI ield res d legal issues pertaining to Section 1911(a). See 490 U.S. at 42 54. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ral scussion of 25 U.S.C. § 1911 lies w equal rce to Section 1911 (b) . 6 concerning [Indian] children. Id. at 53. Notably, a state court cannot use Section 1911(b) to decide substantive issues, such as what the outcome of [the foster care or rental rights] termination shou be.  Id. Instead, a state court must r to experience, wi and compassion of the tribal court, because it is the tr 1 court that must rule on the substant issues once juris ction is transfer Id. at 53-54 ernal ion marks omitted); see also Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, 27 F.3d 1294, 1301 (8th Cir. 1994) (Absent any indication of bias, we will not sume the Tribal Court to be anything other than competent and ial.). The best interests consideration contravenes this recti on by allowing a state court to second guess a tribal court's termination of substantive issues. This is because the actual act of transferring juris ction is not, in and of itself, something that can cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child. 62 Va. . at 376, 747 S.E.2d at 851. Juris ction, be a court's r to decide a case or issue a decree, is an stract concept, real world consequences of trans rring jurisdiction require only that parties a in front of, papers be filed with, a f rent tribunal. Black's Law Dicti 980 (10th ed. 2014); see Kern Oil & Refini Co. v. Tenneco 1 Co., 840 F.2d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing the effects of urisdiction be transferred between ral district llate courts) The act of transferring juris ct ,then, cannot harm a ld. Instead, only substantive isions subs to 7 transfer of juris ct - such as a tribal court's determination that the Indian child should be moved to a new adoptive family before ultimate resolution of the proceedings fall within the scope of a best interests consideration. The Court of Appeals recognized is ct when it held that the focus must remain on imrnediate serious emotional or physical damage flowing from the transfer self. 62 Va. App. at 376, 747 S.E.2d at 851. However, the Court of Appeals then compounded its error when it cons ide as relevant to this determination whether Tr is willing to allow the child to stay her current environment, pending adjudication of the case on merits of termination and/or placement. Id. These post-transfer, substant decisions are the very tribal court determinations that a state court cannot second guess. See 201 ield 490 U.S. at 53-54.