Opinion ID: 2539018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: qualified expert

Text: The minimum federal standard with regard to CINC-type proceedings i.e., where an Indian child may be placed in foster careis stated in 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e), which mandates that there must be a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, a decision to terminate parental rights must be supported by the testimony of qualified expert witnesses, but the State has a higher burden of proof; it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f). At issue here is whether Courtney and Howes, social workers for M.F., were qualified experts under the ICWA and whether their testimony satisfied the standards for the ICWA in the CINC and termination proceedings. The GAL and State argue that the Court of Appeals erred by essentially holding that to be a qualified expert witness under the ICWA, the witness must be knowledgeable in tribal customs or child welfare specifically related to Indian children and must present testimony supporting the State's burden under the ICWA.