Opinion ID: 3032694
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: public law 280 civil jurisdiction

Text: We next consider whether the child dependency law falls within Public Law 280’s civil adjudicatory jurisdiction or whether it is analogous to a regulatory statute. Bryan, 426 U.S. at 390. This distinction may be easy to state but, as noted in the American Indian Law Deskbook, the application is quite onerous.29 [13] California may assert its Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction over cases that are “civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties” and that involve “those civil laws . . . that are of general application to private persons or private property.” 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). The plain language of Public Law 280’s civil jurisdictional provision suggests that California’s enforcement of its child dependency law falls within the state’s Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction. The state proceedings involved a civil cause of action to which Mary Doe and her child, both Indians, were parties. In addition, California’s child dependency law is of “general application to private persons” in the state of California. While it is tempting to rest on this plain reading of the stat29 “The distinction between state civil laws that may supply a rule of decision and state regulatory laws that cannot be enforced by virtue of Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction is hardly clear and has caused difficulty in application.” American Indian Law Deskbook 219-20 (Hardy Myers & Clay Smith eds., 3d ed. 2004). DOE v. MANN 8455 ute, the Supreme Court’s language in Bryan and Cabazon gives us pause: those two cases intimate that Public Law 280’s civil jurisdiction is limited to disputes between private parties, which begs the question whether when, as here, the state is one of the parties, a proceeding falls within Public Law 280’s civil jurisdiction. In Bryan, the Supreme Court described the civil component of Public Law 280 as “primarily intended to redress the lack of adequate Indian forums for resolving private legal disputes between reservation Indians, and between Indians and other private citizens. . . .” Bryan, 426 U.S. at 383 (emphasis added). In Cabazon, the Court reiterated its holding that Public Law 280 granted to states civil jurisdiction only over private disputes. 480 U.S. at 208. We later characterized a Public Law 280 state’s “very limited” civil jurisdiction provision as “essentially [affording] Indians a forum to settle private disputes among themselves.” Confederated Tribes of Colville, 938 F.2d at 147 (emphasis added). Throughout these cases, the theme is that the private nature of disputes is what places them within Public Law 280’s civil jurisdiction. We are confident, however, that resting our analysis simply on the Supreme Court’s references to private disputes would create a tortured result that is at odds with the overall structure of ICWA, as well as with the history of Public Law 280 and California child dependency proceedings. To begin, the genesis of the Court’s analysis in Bryan and Cabazon was very different from a child dependency proceeding. In both those cases, the broad language about “private legal disputes” and “private civil litigation” was made in the context of an attempt to categorize a state’s authority to regulate taxation and gambling. The taxation and gambling statutes both regulate the conduct of the public at large. They do not address the rights or status of private individuals. And, in the case of taxation, the Court was particularly sensitive to precedent barring states from taxing reservation Indians with8456 DOE v. MANN out express congressional approval.30 In contrast, California’s child dependency proceedings focus, not on public activities, but on the status of individual Indian parents and children. At the heart of the dependency proceedings is a dispute about the status of the child, a private individual; the simple fact that the state steps in as a party does not transform what is an adjudicatory proceeding involving private parties into a regulatory proceeding.31 In short, child dependency proceedings are more analogous to the “private legal disputes” that 30 The Supreme Court in Bryan noted that prior decisions of the Court firmly established that without congressional authorization, the states were generally barred from imposing taxes on reservation Indians. 426 U.S. at 376-77. The Court was particularly concerned with Congress’s silence on any intention to confer taxing authority over Indian country through the civil component of Public Law 280: Of special significance for our purposes, however, is the total absence of mention or discussion regarding a congressional intent to confer upon the States an authority to tax Indians or Indian property on reservations. . . . This omission has significance in the application of the canon of construction applicable to statutes affecting Indian immunities, as some mention would normally be expected if such a sweeping change in the status of tribal government and reservation Indians had been contemplated by Congress. Id. at 381. 31 California and Minnesota treat suits brought by the state to collect child support from a parent as equivalent to private civil litigation under Public Law 280 jurisdiction. See County of Inyo v. Jeff, 227 Cal. App. 3d 487, 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (“While Public Law 280 is structured in terms of private parties, we believe that the test is one of substance rather than form . . . [T]he mere fact that the state is a party does not in and of itself disqualify [the county]. The action of Inyo can be considered as private in substance.”); Becker County Welfare Dep’t v. Bellcourt, 453 N.W.2d 543, 544 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (same). But see State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Whitebreast, 409 N.W.2d 460, 463-64 (Iowa 1987) (rejecting the state’s contention that its petition filed “as next friend” transformed its public, regulatory duty into a private civil cause of action under Public Law 280). DOE v. MANN 8457 fall under a state’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction than to the regulatory regimes at issue in Bryan and Cabazon. A footnote in Bryan underscores that California’s child dependency law is different from the taxation laws considered in that case and that it should not be considered “regulatory” in nature. In Bryan, the Supreme Court recognized commentary stating that laws having to do with status were the types of laws that Congress envisioned would fall within a state’s civil Public Law 280 jurisdiction: A fair reading of these two clauses suggests that Congress never intended ‘civil laws’ to mean the entire array of state noncriminal laws, but rather that Congress intended ‘civil laws’ to mean those laws which have to do with private rights and status. Therefore, ‘civil laws . . . of general application to private persons or private property’ would include the laws of contract, tort, marriage, divorce, insanity, descent, etc., but would not include laws declaring or implementing the states’ sovereign powers, such as the power to tax, grant franchises, etc. These are not within the fair meaning of ‘private’ laws. 426 U.S. at 384 n.10 (emphasis added) (quoting Daniel H. Israel & Thomas L. Smithson, Indian Taxation, Tribal Sovereignty and Economic Development, 49 N.D. L. Rev. 267, 296 (1973)). While we do not view the Supreme Court’s footnote as dispositive, we observe that the Court recognized “status” laws generally, and “insanity” laws particularly, as different from regulatory laws. In a similar vein, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has categorized statutes involving status determinations as falling within Public Law 280’s civil jurisdiction. That court held that a state civil statute permitting the state to involuntarily commit sexually violent persons applied to Indian country through either the state’s Public Law 280 criminal jurisdiction or 8458 DOE v. MANN through the state’s Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction. In re Burgess, 665 N.W.2d 124, 132 (Wis. 2003). The Court referenced Bryan’s “insanity” language to bolster its alternative civil analysis: In addition, even if [Wisconsin’s involuntary civil commitment statute] is strictly construed as a “civil” law in its entirety, it is civil/adjudicatory rather than civil/regulatory, and therefore falls within PL-280’s grant of civil jurisdiction to the State. . . . In this case, the adjudication of Burgess’s mental health is a status determination, which is more similar to adjudications like those involving insanity, rather than regulations such as the power to tax. Id. at 132-33. Even though the Wisconsin Attorney General’s 1981 opinion concluded that the state would not enforce its involuntary child dependency law in Indian country because the laws were “regulatory” in nature under Bryan, 70 Op. Att’y Gen. Wis. 237 (1981), 1981 Wisc. AG LEXIS 7, , 18, 19-20, the state supreme court decision, which is controlling law in Wisconsin, recognized that a status determination is different than a regulatory regime for civil jurisdictional purposes under Public Law 280. [14] The distinction the Wisconsin Supreme Court drew between state adjudicatory jurisdiction and state regulatory jurisdiction is not without significant textual and historical support. As referenced in William Canby’s American Indian Law Nutshell: The civil grant is one of power over “civil causes of action.” This language would appear to mean that the state simply acquired adjudicatory jurisdiction— the power to decide cases—not the entire power to legislate and regulate in Indian country . . . . DOE v. MANN 8459 The Supreme Court [in Bryan] concluded that the primary purpose of the civil provisions of Public Law 280 was to provide a state forum for the resolu- tion of disputes. Viewed in that light, the provision that the civil laws of the state should have effect in Indian country simply ‘authorizes application by the state courts of their rules of decision to decide such disputes.’ The effect of the Court’s decision is to confine the civil grant of Public Law 280 to adjudicatory jurisdiction only. William C. Canby, Jr., American Indian Law in a Nutshell 241-42 (4th ed. 2004). That California’s dependency law determines children’s status is compelling evidence that it is adjudicatory, not regulatory. Our conclusion does not rest solely on an abstract analysis of Public Law 280. One difficulty with applying Bryan and Cabazon in a vacuum is that, in those cases, the Court was forced to interpret Public Law 280 as a stand-alone statute without context and with virtually no legislative history. We face a different situation. Here, Public Law 280 is embedded within ICWA, a comprehensive statute with considerable legislative history and with a singular focus—child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Significantly, Public Law 280 must be interpreted as part and parcel of ICWA, the statute into which it is incorporated. Thus, we turn now to an analysis of the text, structure, history, and backdrop of ICWA. Whereas the civil component of Public Law 280 was enacted with a “virtual absence of expression of congressional policy or intent,” Bryan, 426 U.S. at 381, in ICWA Congress provided considerable structure, content, and intent. The text and structure of ICWA, coupled with the backdrop against which ICWA was enacted, persuade us that Congress intended Public Law 280 states to exercise jurisdiction over 8460 DOE v. MANN child dependency proceedings and did not intend to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary proceedings for the purposes of Public Law 280. [15] ICWA references Public Law 280 in two places, both of which indicate that Congress intended Public Law 280 states to have jurisdiction over dependency proceedings in Indian country. First, while § 1911(a) gives tribes in most states exclusive jurisdiction “over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child, who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe,” Congress limited this tribal jurisdiction “where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law.” In other words, tribes do not have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings in Public Law 280 states. [16] Second, Congress expressly incorporated Public Law 280 in § 1918(a): Any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Act of August 15, 1953 (67 Stat. 588), as amended by Title IV of the Act of April 11, 1968 (82 Stat. 73, 78) [Public Law 280], or pursuant to any other Federal law, may reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Before any Indian tribe may reassume jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings, such tribe shall present to the Secretary for approval a petition to reassume such jurisdiction which includes a suitable plan to exercise such jurisdiction. Through use of the term “reassume,” Congress manifested its awareness that Public Law 280 states would continue to exercise jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, both voluntary and involuntary. In § 1918, Congress provided tribes in Public Law 280 states the opportunity to obtain exclusive jurisdiction by following a detailed procedure. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1918(a), (b); 25 C.F.R. § 13.12. Absent an attempt to folDOE v. MANN 8461 low that protocol, however, Public Law 280 states may exercise jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Section 1918(a) would make little sense unless § 1911(a) permits Public Law 280 states to exercise jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Section 1918(a) provides a mechanism for the tribes to reassume exclusive jurisdiction. But unless Public Law 280 states have jurisdiction, there is nothing for tribes to reassume under § 1918. It would be illogical to give exclusive jurisdiction back to the tribes under § 1918(a) if such jurisdiction were not part of the exception under § 1911(a). Mary Doe claims that under ICWA, states have jurisdiction over adoptions and voluntary proceedings, but not over involuntary dependency actions. Mary Doe’s efforts to create a distinction between “involuntary” and “voluntary” proceedings in order to put her case outside of California’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction are unpersuasive and without statutory support. As an overall proposition, it is important to note that both § 1911(a) and § 1918 reference “child custody proceeding” as a unitary concept and do not separate or distinguish between voluntary and involuntary proceedings. In addition, “child custody proceeding” is specifically defined by § 1903(1) to include both voluntary and involuntary child custody proceedings:
include—
mean any action removing an Indian child from its parent or Indian custodian for tem- porary placement in a foster home or insti- tution or the home of a guardian or conservator where the parent or Indian cus- todian cannot have the child returned upon 8462 DOE v. MANN demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated;
shall mean any action resulting in the termi- nation of the parent-child relationship;
mean the temporary placement of an Indian child in a foster home or institution after the termination of parental rights, but prior to or in lieu of adoptive placement; and
mean the permanent placement of an Indian child for adoption, including any action resulting in a final decree of adoption. Such term shall not include a placement based upon an act which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed a crime or upon an award, in a divorce pro- ceeding, of custody to one of the parents. 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1). Although the definition encompasses voluntary adoption, which ultimately would result in “termination of parental rights” and an “adoptive placement,” the sequence of the definition is, however, clearly aimed at involuntary proceedings. A “foster care placement” is one “wherein the parent or Indian custodian cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated.” Following such a placement, parental rights may be terminated. In turn, a child would then be placed in a “preadoption placement” and ultimately, although not necessarily, into a permanent “adoptive placement.” The definition of the term “child custody proceeding” definitely encompasses both voluntary DOE v. MANN 8463 and involuntary proceedings and contemplates state participation in dependency proceedings. The text of ICWA further underscores that Congress distinguished voluntary from involuntary child custody proceedings when it intended the distinction to be meaningful. For instance, §§ 1912 and 1913 established federal standards that apply in involuntary and voluntary child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Section 1912(a) specifically requires state agencies to give notice to an Indian child’s parent or custodian and tribe when an involuntary proceeding is pending in state court. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (“In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, . . .”) (emphasis added). In addition, § 1913 establishes parental rights in voluntary child custody proceedings involving Indian children. 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (entitled “Parental rights; voluntary termination) (emphasis added); 25 U.S.C. § 1913(c) (in any voluntary proceeding for termination of parental rights, a parent may withdraw consent). Congress made no such distinction between involuntary and voluntary child custody proceedings when it employed its general reference to “child custody proceedings” in §§ 1911(a) and 1918(a). The maxim that the various provisions of a statute are affected by other parts of the statutory scheme and that “the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme,” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132-33 (2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted), is particularly apt here. When the term “child custody proceedings” is used as it is defined in § 1903 without modification, it refers to child custody proceedings generally, both voluntary and involuntary. Only §§ 1912 and 1913 make a distinction; when Congress wanted to refer to either voluntary or involuntary 8464 DOE v. MANN proceedings specifically, it so stated. Absent that delineation, the statute does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary proceedings. See §§ 1911(a) and 1918(a). This understanding of ICWA is also reflected in the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs following ICWA’s enactment. The regulations require tribes attempting to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings pursuant to § 1918 to show the availability of child care services. 25 C.F.R. § 13.12(5). In particular, the child care services were deemed necessary in cases where a “tribal court finds [a child] must be removed from parental custody,” id., which confirms that the Bureau of Indian Affairs anticipated tribal reassumption of jurisdiction over involuntary proceedings where Public Law 280 states had assumed jurisdiction.32 [17] In short, the explicit references to Public Law 280 in ICWA, ICWA’s clear definition of child custody proceedings, and the statutory structure of ICWA demonstrate that Con32 While Mary Doe points out that the same regulations noted that the jurisdictional status of child custody proceedings was not clear in the late 1970s, this statement in the regulations was limited to the debate over whether Public Law 280 states have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over child custody proceedings: On some reservations there are disputes concerning whether certain federal statutes have subjected Indian child custody proceedings to state jurisdiction or whether any such jurisdiction conferred on a state is exclusive of tribal jurisdiction. Tribes located on those reservations may wish to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or other jurisdiction currently exercised by the state without the necessity of engaging in protracted litigation. The procedures in this part also permit such tribes to secure unquestioned exclusive, concurrent or partial jurisdiction over Indian child custody matters without relinquishing their claim that no Federal statute had ever deprived them of that jurisdiction. 25 C.F.R. § 13.1(b). This question was resolved by our decision in Native Village of Venetie I, which held that Public Law 280 states have only concurrent jurisdiction with the tribes over child custody proceedings involving Indian children. 944 F.2d at 559-62. DOE v. MANN 8465 gress intended Public Law 280 states to have jurisdiction over Indian child dependency proceedings unless tribes availed themselves of § 1918 in order to obtain exclusive jurisdiction. The effort to impose a dividing line between voluntary and involuntary finds no support in the statute. The legal landscape that existed when Congress passed ICWA bolsters the conclusion that Public Law 280 states have jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings. When Congress enacted ICWA, states already were exercising their Public Law 280 jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings, a fact we presume Congress knew. E.g., United States v. Gonzalez-Mendez, 150 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We presume that Congress enacts statutes with full knowledge of the existing law.”). Therefore, it cannot go unnoticed that Congress considered ICWA against the backdrop of mandatory Public Law 280 states like California33 and nonmandatory states like Washington and Idaho that had specifically asserted Public Law 280 jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings prior to the passage of ICWA.34 Had Congress wanted to divest Public Law 280 states of this jurisdiction, surely it would have done so on the face of ICWA. 33 As a mandatory Public Law 280 state, California did not need specific state legislation to take jurisdiction over Public Law 280 subjects, including child dependency. 34 Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010 (1963); Idaho Code § 67-5101 (1963). These statutes did not indicate whether the states thought the criminal or civil component of Public Law 280 provided each state with jurisdiction over involuntary child dependency proceedings. Recently, an Idaho appeals court asserted in dictum that Idaho’s child dependency law was prohibitory in nature, and therefore, fell within the state’s criminal Public Law 280 jurisdiction. State v. Marek, 777 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989) (“Idaho does not merely “regulate” — rather, it prohibits and seeks to eliminate — injury to children. Indeed, the same can be said of the Child Protective Act and the Parent-Child Relationship Termination Act. These statutes do not simply ‘regulate’ the abuse, neglect or abandonment of children; rather, they seek to prevent and to ameliorate the tragic effects of such conduct.”). 8466 DOE v. MANN The legislative history of ICWA supports the view that Congress intended Public Law 280 states to retain jurisdiction over all child custody proceedings as defined in ICWA. In fact, the focus of Congress and the Executive Branch on the ability of tribes in Public Law 280 states to reassume exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings comports with our conclusion that both branches were particularly concerned with the tribes’ ability to handle resource-intensive child custody proceedings. In passing ICWA, Congress recognized that Public Law 280 states should retain, at least initially, jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings until the tribes had the capability to reassume exclusive jurisdiction. As discussed in § III(B), supra, the carve out of Public Law 280 states from ICWA’s exclusive tribal jurisdiction was a conscious undertaking on the part of Congress. Indeed, after the Executive Branch brought to the attention of Congress that failure to exclude Public Law 280 states from § 1911(a) would obliterate existing state-court jurisdiction, Congress was quick to respond—both with a letter to the Department of Justice35 and with amendment of the draft bill. It is also important to note that throughout the congressional discussions of ICWA, state-initiated dependency proceedings were a focus of the discussion. The conference report that accompanied the passage of ICWA demonstrates Congress’s focus on abuses in involuntary child custody proceedings involving Indian children. After summing up the statistical evidence that Indian children were far more likely to be removed from their families and placed in foster homes than non-Indian children, the report stated “It is clear then that the Indian child welfare crisis is of massive proportions and 35 Morris Udall, Chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, advised the Department of Justice that the Committee had, in fact, “amended the bill to meet some of the Department’s objections.” 124 Cong. Rec. H38103 (daily ed. Oct. 14, 1978) (letter of Rep. Udall). DOE v. MANN 8467 that Indian families face vastly greater risks of involuntary separation than are typical of our society as a whole.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 9 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7532. The report went on to note that “[i]n judging the fitness of a particular family, many social workers, ignorant of Indian cultural values and social norms, make decisions that are wholly inappropriate in the context of Indian family life and so they frequently discover neglect or abandonment where none exists.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 10, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7532. While it is true that Congress also expressed concern with voluntary adoptions both by incorporating voluntary proceedings as part of ICWA and noting voluntary proceedings in the legislative history, the legislative history demonstrates Congress’s strong interest in curbing the abuses of state agencies and courts in involuntary proceedings. To conclude that Congress, when it amended § 1911(a) to exclude tribes in Public Law 280 states from exercising exclusive jurisdiction, meant only to refer to voluntary proceedings is thus unreasonable. If Congress intended to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary proceedings in the context of the Public Law 280 proviso in § 1911(a), then Congress would have done so explicitly rather than referring only to “child custody proceedings” generally before inserting the “existing Federal law” proviso. In drafting the definition of “child custody proceedings” to include involuntary proceedings and in structuring the legislation so that tribes in Public Law 280 states could reassume exclusive jurisdiction over these proceedings, Congress recognized that dependency proceedings fell within the Public Law 280 carve out. The case law cited in the report accompanying the passage of ICWA also supports this understanding. The report cites three cases involving non-Public Law 280 states. In each instance, the court held that tribes had exclusive jurisdiction. But the cases all suggest that if Public Law 280 had been applicable, the state would have had jurisdiction. H.R. Rep. 8468 DOE v. MANN No. 95-1386, at 21 (July 24, 1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7544 (citing Wisconsin Potowatomies v. Houston, 393 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. Mich. 1973); Wakefield v. Little Light, 347 A.2d 228 (Md. 1975); Matter of Adoption of Buehl, Duckhead v. Anderson, 555 P.2d 1334 (Wash. 1976)).36 The citation to Duckhead is particularly instructive because Duckhead references Comenout v. Burdman, 525 P.2d 217 (Wash. 1974). Duckhead, 555 P.2d at 1338-39. In Comenout, the Washington Supreme Court held that Washington courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Public Law 280 to terminate the parental rights of Indians residing on reservations within the State of Washington through enforcement of the state’s involuntary child dependency law. 525 P.2d at 222. Mary Doe urges us to apply the Indian canon of construction to resolve the dispute in her favor. See Ala. Pac. Fisheries Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89 (1918) (ambiguous provisions in a statute passed for the benefit of tribes and their members are interpreted in favor of the Indians). Although we have applied the Indian canons to resolve whether state speeding laws are criminal or regulatory under Public Law 280, that case involved Public Law 280 as a standalone statute and not in connection with ICWA’s exception. See Confederated Tribes of Colville, 938 F.2d at 149. The sovereignty considerations that have led courts to apply the canon in interpreting Public Law 280 are not present here because Congress already weighed those considerations in formulating ICWA. There is little doubt that concern for tribal sovereignty and tribal control over Indian children led 36 Although the Washington Supreme Court decided Duckhead and Washington is a non-mandatory Public Law 280 state, the case involved a tribe located in Montana, a state that had not assumed Public Law 280 jurisdiction over the Montana tribe involved in the case. Duckhead, 555 P.2d at 657-58 & n.6. The court emphasized that if Washington’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction had applied, the state would have had jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of Indians. Id. at 657. DOE v. MANN 8469 to ICWA’s adoption. See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(3) (Indian Child Welfare Act Congressional Findings — “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children”). After Bryan, the carve out from Public Law 280 of regulatory jurisdiction was clear and the scope of Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction was clarified. In the face of this decision, Congress was unambiguous in its effort to exempt Public Law 280 states from ICWA’s exclusive jurisdiction and, in doing so, to include all child custody proceedings, both voluntary and involuntary. [18] But Congress was not unmindful of bridging the sovereignty gap for tribes in Public Law 280 states. With the goal of making tribal sovereignty paramount, Congress established a scheme by which tribes in Public Law 280 states, without the cooperation of state governments, could petition the Secretary of Interior for reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings through § 1918. Section 1918 recognized the sovereignty concerns of tribes by permitting Public Law 280 tribes to reassert their sovereign, exclusive authority over child custody proceedings involving children domiciled on the reservation. Given the lack of ambiguity in ICWA and explicit congressional recognition of Indian sovereignty in ICWA, including the reassumption provisions, the Indian canon of construction does not come into play. Mary Doe’s tribe, the Elem Indian Colony, has never petitioned for reassumption of jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. We decline to use the Indian canon of construction to disrupt a congressional scheme that provided a specific process through which tribes in Public Law 280 states could protect their sovereign interests in the future of Indian children. Although our decision does not provide relief to Mary Doe, nothing prevents Mary Doe’s tribe from submitting a petition to reassume jurisdiction37 and nothing prevents Con37 Section 1918(d) states that an “[a]ssumption of jurisdiction under this section shall not affect any action or proceeding over which a court has already assumed jurisdiction . . .” 8470 DOE v. MANN gress from amending ICWA’s statutory scheme to recognize the tribal sovereignty interests through a method other than § 1918’s reassumption provisions. In a policy area so fraught with risk to the interests of Indian children and tribes, we do not think the court should substitute its judgment for that of Congress where Congress explicitly provided tribes an opportunity to assert their sovereignty over child custody proceedings. Finally, we turn to a discussion of California’s practice of asserting concurrent jurisdiction under Public Law 280 over dependency proceedings involving Indian children. The practice is best described by a benchguide for California judges prepared by the Law Offices of California Indian Legal Services. See generally Mary J. Risling, California Judges’ Benchguide: The Indian Child Welfare Act (2000), available at http://www.calindian.org/icwa.htm. Because the excerpts are illuminating, we quote at length. Under its definition of “child custody proceeding”, the [ICWA] specifies the types of custody cases to which it applies and the types of custody cases to which it does not apply. The focus is not on what a proceeding is called, or whether it is a private action or an action brought by a public agency, but on whether the proceeding meets a definition set forth in the Act. (25 U.S.C. 1903(1).) The Act covers any temporary placement where the child need not be returned upon demand, and includes placement in a foster home or institution or the home of a guardian or conservator. The Act also covers any proceeding resulting in adoption or termination of parental rights. This would generally not include juvenile, family court and probate guardianship actions. Benchguide at 1 (emphasis original).