Opinion ID: 4200908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion to intervene and federal

Text: PATERNITY STANDARD ¶ 158 The lead opinion’s decision on the merits of E.T.’s motion to intervene is likewise problematic. Here a majority of the court expands the reach of ICWA in a manner that its plain language cannot bear— and that ignores a countervailing purpose that Congress was also balancing in enacting ICWA. I respectfully dissent. ¶ 159 ICWA, like most statutes, is not “aimed at advancing a single objective at the expense of all others.” Myers v. Myers, 2011 UT 65, ¶ 27, 266 P.3d 806. It is a “result of a legislative give-and-take that balances multiple concerns.” Id. A key countervailing purpose at stake under ICWA is the protection of the traditional jurisdiction of state courts over adoption proceedings. See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5) (noting that states 84 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part possess “recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings”).31 ICWA does not oust the states of that traditional area of their authority. Id. It recognizes it to a large degree—balancing against the interests of the integrity of Indian families the rights of the states to vindicate the important interests protected by their laws of adoption and parental rights. ¶ 160 In other words, ICWA does not create an independent federal adoption regime. Its substantive provisions function only within the context of a state or tribal adoption proceeding. See id. §§ 1911–13. And Congress did not override the traditional jurisdiction inherent in adoption cases. It simply mandated some minimum standards that state adoption schemes must satisfy. See id. § 1902. ¶ 161 This confirms that Congress understood the importance of state law in this field. And it recognized the fundamental nature of the interests protected by such law—including the welfare and best interests of children, which are implicated whenever an adoption 31 ICWA admittedly provides for a degree of federal “intervention” into state sovereignty in this field. See supra ¶ 62. But the Act also preserves “traditional” state sovereignty to some degree. That is reflected not only in the text of section 1901(5) but also in other statutory sections that make reference to mechanisms and terms of state law. See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (identifying additional federal standards to apply to “any involuntary proceeding in a State court”); id. § 1913(b) (identifying a right to “withdraw consent to a foster care placement under State law”); id. § 1919(a) (authorizing the establishment of jurisdiction agreements between states and tribes); id. § 1922 (authorizing “emergency removal . . . under applicable State law”). To that extent there is no mistaking the fact that ICWA balances the protection of “the essential tribal relations of Indian people,” see supra ¶ 62, against the “traditional” sovereignty of the states. I am not advocating that we ignore the former, as the majority suggests. I am just urging that we keep both sets of interests in mind— and that we look to the text of the statute in deciding where Congress has intervened and where it has preserved traditional state sovereignty. Thus, I would give full effect to ICWA’s text where the statute identifies unique federal standards. But I would not go beyond the text of the statute to displace state law where Congress has not spoken. 85 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part proceeding is underway. Thus, ICWA does not guarantee an unfettered right of members of Indian tribes to intervene in or object to an adoption in any circumstance or at any time. It sets forth specific, limited rights of tribal members. ¶ 162 The provision at issue here is along these lines. It does not guarantee a right to notice and intervention to any tribal member with a claimed interest in a child in an adoption proceeding. It limits that right to a “parent.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a). And ICWA defines “parent” in a careful, limited way. It states that a “parent” is “any biological parent or parents of an Indian child,” not including “the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” Id. § 1903(9). ¶ 163 To me this is an obvious invocation of state law. I say obvious because paternity has never been a creature of federal law. It has always been a matter within the exclusive sovereignty of the states. The longstanding rule in Utah and elsewhere is that an unwed father’s legal rights as a father—his “paternity”—is established by the law of the state in which his putative child’s adoption goes forward. See generally In re Adoption of Baby B., 2012 UT 35, 308 P.3d 382; see also HOMER H. CLARK, JR., THE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 309 (2d ed. 1972). Admittedly, there are constitutional limitations on this general rule—circumstances in which the state law of paternity must give way to federal constitutional limitations (such as due process). See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 649–58 (1972) (holding that “a presumption that distinguishes and burdens [only] all unwed fathers” was unconstitutional). But no one has suggested that any such limitation would apply here. So the obvious place to look to decide whether E.T. has “acknowledged” or “established” his “paternity” is Utah law. ¶ 164 I would decide this case on that basis. I would conclude, as have other courts confronting this question,32 that an Indian parent has 32 See Jared P. v. Glade T., 209 P.3d 157, 161 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (“ICWA does not, however, define how paternity can be acknowledged or otherwise detail any procedure to establish paternity. Consequently, we look to state law to determine whether paternity has been acknowledged or established.”); In re Daniel M., 708, 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897, 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (“Moreover, because the ICWA does not provide a standard for the acknowledgment or establishment of (cont.) 86 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part a right to notice and intervention under 25 U.S.C. section 1912(a) only if his paternity has been “acknowledged or established” as a matter of state law (or perhaps tribal law). And I would affirm the district court’s decision here because it was properly based on the Utah standard. ¶ 165 The majority’s contrary conclusions cannot stand. The statutory text undermines the majority’s approach. And Congress’s legislative purpose, as interpreted in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), cannot properly be construed to support the court’s conclusions. Holyfield is easily distinguishable, as it involved a statutory term (domicile) of “generally uncontroverted” meaning. Id. at 48. ¶ 166 That cannot be said of the notion of the acknowledgement or establishment of paternity. These are terms that impose varying standards throughout the fifty states (and the laws of Indian nations). We cannot possibly interpret this language of ICWA to prescribe a uniform federal standard. The only way to achieve uniformity would be to legislate a specific, binding federal standard. Yet even the majority declines to do that. It just says it thinks that a reasonability standard would work the best.33 And it provides no analysis under that standard paternity, courts have resolved the issue under state law.”); In re Adoption of a Child of Indian Heritage, 543 A.2d 925, 935 (N.J. 1988) (“We conclude, therefore, that Congress intended to defer to state or tribal law standards for establishing paternity, so long as these approaches are permissible variations on the methods of acknowledging and establishing paternity within the general contemplation of Congress when it passed the ICWA. . . .”); In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 67 P.3d 359, 367 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003) (relying on state law but warning that its application cannot frustrate the purpose of ICWA). 33 The majority seeks support for its approach in a supposed “canon of interpretation” presuming a “reasonability” standard in the face of statutory silence “as to the time or manner of a subject.” Supra ¶ 71. And it claims that such a canon is “consistent with ICWA case law.” Supra ¶ 71. I’m unsure of the basis or applicability of this supposed “canon” as a general matter. But whatever its merits in other settings, it is not consistent with the ICWA cases cited by the majority. Neither the Arizona Court of Appeals nor the Alaska Supreme Court adopted a federal reasonability standard for acknowledging or establishing paternity. To the contrary, both courts held that the undefined terms (cont.) 87 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part other than to say that E.T. has acknowledged or established paternity under any possible standard. ¶ 167 To me that suggests that we are not really interpreting the terms of the governing federal statute. If we are unable to state a meaningful legal standard, we are not really judging in accordance with a rule of law. We are only picking a winner in litigation. I cannot agree with this decision. And I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis for these reasons, which I explain in more detail below.
¶ 168 The starting place for our analysis should be the statutory text. And that text strongly signals the congressional adoption of a state standard of paternity. It does so by employing legal terms of art with settled meaning in family law. ¶ 169 A person cannot qualify as a parent under ICWA if he is an “unwed father” whose “paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9). Four elements of this phrasing cut against the majority’s conclusion that ICWA directs state courts to establish a uniform federal standard of paternity. ¶ 170 First, the words acknowledgement and establishment of paternity are long-established terms of art in state family law. All fifty states prescribe their own standards and procedures for acknowledging or establishing paternity.34 But the phrases employed in ICWA encompass invoked state law. Jared P., 209 P.3d at 161 (”ICWA does not, however, define how paternity can be acknowledged or otherwise detail any procedure to establish paternity. Consequently, we look to state law to determine whether paternity has been acknowledged or established.” (emphasis added)); Bruce L. v. W.E., 247 P.3d 966, 978 (Alaska 2011) (following courts that “have looked to state law . . . to determine whether paternity has been acknowledged or established under ICWA.”). Granted, both the Arizona and Alaska courts concluded that the putative father did not have to perfectly comply with applicable state law in some circumstances. But that is a far cry from the adoption of a uniform federal reasonability standard. “All states have programs under which birthing hospitals give 34 unmarried parents of a newborn the opportunity to acknowledge the (cont.) 88 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part concepts that most all states share in common: (a) the notion of an acknowledgement of paternity, which generally refers to a writing by a father (with or without a requirement of consent by the mother), where the writing itself has the legal effect of sustaining a father’s parental rights to some degree;35 and (b) the concept of an establishment of father’s paternity of the child. States must also help parents acknowledge paternity up until the child’s eighteenth birthday through vital records offices or other offices designated by the state. Paternity can also be established at a court or administrative hearing or by default if the man was served notice of a paternity hearing but did not appear.” DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, HANDBOOK ON CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 14 (2008) (emphasis added). 35 Even in 1978, when ICWA was enacted, “acknowledge” was a term of art that indicated a specific process under state law—though varying from state to state. No later than 1921, there was already debate about what steps an unwed father should be required to take to legally “acknowledge” paternity. WALTER C. TIFFANY, HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF PERSONS AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS 302–03 (Roger W. Cooley ed., 3d ed. 1921) (“The courts are not in agreement as to what constitutes a sufficient acknowledgment of the child to legitimate it. In a few instances it has been held that the acknowledgment must be by an instrument executed for the express purpose, but the better rule seems to be that the writing need not be made for the express purpose of acknowledging the child, but that the acknowledgment is sufficient if made in any written instrument, collateral or otherwise.”). In the 1970s there was still “great variety in the methods prescribed [by the states] for making the acknowledgment.” HOMER H. CLARK, JR., THE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 173 (1987). “In some states,” the acknowledgement had to be “in writing and witnessed, in others it [had to] be executed before a notary or other officer, in others it [had to] be merely in writing, in others it [had to] be ‘general and notorious’ and in still others no formalities whatever [were] required.” Id. In an effort to eliminate the inconsistency that stemmed from states’ exclusive jurisdiction to prescribe the acknowledgement process, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws published the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973. Pursuant to the Act, an unwed father (cont.) 89 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part paternity, which is initiated by a court filing and culminates in the issuance of a judicial order (sometimes contested but not necessarily) establishing the father’s parental rights and obligations.36 Surely it was no accident that Congress utilized terms with accepted meaning in state family law. And because it did, we should presume that ICWA embraced the principles embedded in these state law terms. ¶ 171 Second, the statute speaks in the past tense. It forecloses the right to notice and intervention for unwed fathers whose paternity “has not been acknowledged or established.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9). This backward-looking phrasing further underscores the state term-of-art premise of the ICWA definition. Congress made the putative father’s right to notice and intervention dependent on what had been acknowledged or established—past tense. And there is not and never has been any way for a father to “acknowledge” or “establish” his parental rights as a matter of federal law. There is no such thing as federal family law (see more on that below). And for that reason it would be very odd for Congress to be speaking of a federal could acknowledge paternity “in a writing filed with the appropriate court or Vital Statistics Bureau” if the mother “does not dispute the acknowledgment within a reasonable time after being informed thereof.” UNIF. ACT ON PARENTAGE § 4 (NAT’L CONFERENCE OF COMM’RS ON UNIF. STATE LAWS 1973). As of 2000, nineteen states had enacted the Uniform Parentage Act in its entirety and many others had enacted “significant portions of it.” Prefatory Note to UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT (NAT’L CONFERENCE OF COMM’RS ON UNIF. STATE LAWS 2002). But there is still no national, uniform standard. This is purely a matter of state law, and the standards vary widely across the fifty states. 36 Even prior to ICWA, “statutes ha[d] been enacted in most if not all jurisdictions creating judicial proceedings to establish the paternity of an illegitimate child. . . .” 59 A.L.R. 3d 685 (1974) (emphasis added); see also 14 C.J.S. Children Out-of-Wedlock § 111 (describing the different burdens of proof in suits to establish paternity); UNIF. ACT ON PARENTAGE §§ 3, 6 (NAT’L CONFERENCE OF COMM’RS ON UNIF. STATE LAWS 1973) (authorizing a “natural father” to establish his paternity through court action). 90 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part acknowledgement or establishment of paternity as a prerequisite to a right to notice and intervention.37 ¶ 172 Third, the statutory duty to provide notice to those whose paternity has been acknowledged or established indicates that these are established, formal mechanisms. A family who wishes to adopt a child of Indian heritage has a statutory duty to provide notice to any parent. But if parent includes anyone who has vaguely acknowledged paternity in some informal way, the adopting family will have no way to know how to fulfill its obligations under ICWA. And an Indian mother would have no way of assuring that her child will actually be given to the adoptive couple, even after her own parental rights have been terminated. That is a further strike against the majority’s construction. Surely Congress didn’t mean to require biological mothers and 37 The majority appears to ignore this point in its reasonableness analysis. Rather than focusing exclusively on E.T.’s actions prior to the termination order, it spends significant time on the actions E.T. took after the termination order. But E.T. could not possibly have been entitled to notice and intervention at the time the proceeding began—or even at the time of his motion to intervene—based on actions he took after that time. I am also skeptical that the actions he took prior to the custody proceedings satisfied even the majority’s reasonability standard for acknowledging paternity. My skepticism stems not from any “socioeconomic [or] cultural assumptions,” supra ¶ 75 n.29, but from the inherent difficulty of administering a “reasonability” standard that credits purely private conduct. The relevant “actions” boil down to E.T. providing for C.C. for the first six months of pregnancy and believing that C.C. would come back to South Dakota or that he would join C.C. in Utah after the baby was born. If this amounts to a reasonable acknowledgment of paternity, almost anything will. After all, E.T. appears to have provided for C.C. even before the child was conceived, and he does not assert that he articulated or documented his beliefs regarding future plans before the custody proceedings were initiated. Under those circumstances I cannot see how the adoptive parents or the district court would have any way of knowing that E.T. had an interest in the child—or of providing E.T. notice at the time the adoption petition was filed. And this only exacerbates the practical problems of the majority’s standard. 91 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part adoptive families to give notice to persons whose acknowledgement of paternity was so vague and informal that they cannot reasonably be identified. And the majority’s decision to require this only enhances the practical concerns identified above. See supra ¶¶ 111–15. ¶ 173 A fourth and related point builds on a series of established canons or norms of statutory construction in this field. When Congress passed ICWA, it was surely aware that (a) “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child” has long been understood to “belong[] to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States,” Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593–94 (1890);38 (b) state courts have “virtually exclusive primacy” in the area of family law, while “federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of” family law “even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction,” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2691 (2013); and (c) for these and other reasons, family law terms in federal statutes are ordinarily deemed to be “determined by state, rather than federal law,” De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580 (1956). ¶ 174 These principles lend a heavy dose of skepticism to the view that Congress intended to delegate to state courts the power to prescribe a set of uniform federal standards of paternity. That would be an extraordinary delegation of federal policymaking power. To me it’s unimaginable that Congress would have meant to delegate that power to a judicial branch of another sovereign—fifty sovereigns, really—in a field traditionally left to that sovereign’s sole authority.39 38 See also Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 575 (1906) (“No one denies that the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942); United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2689–90 (2013) (“By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.”). 39 My point is not to state a general objection to an inquiry into “reasonableness”—or even to “subjective standards generally.” See Oliver v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 39, ¶ 84 n.18, __ P.3d __ (Lee, A.C.J., concurring). It is to emphasize the need to tie our legal standards “to the statutory text,” and to urge caution for “fuzzy” legal inquiries (cont.) 92 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part ¶ 175 The exercise of this power is a matter of legislative policymaking. There is no “right” answer to the question of what it takes for an unwed father to acknowledge or establish paternity. So to make law on the appropriate standards, we would have to step into the role long held by our legislature. I have no idea how to do that. (Should we hold legislative hearings the way the legislature does when it adopts or amends laws in this field?) And I am certain Congress didn’t mean for the Utah Supreme Court to have the final say on the matter. We are one of fifty state courts of last resort. So to interpret ICWA to give this body the power to decide on an ideal standard for the acknowledgement or establishment of paternity is to assure a lack of a uniform standard. That cannot be what Congress had in mind—even under the majority’s strong purposivist view of ICWA. See supra ¶ 69 (concluding that Congress’s purpose of assuring uniformity sustains the conclusion that this court should prescribe a federal standard of acknowledging or establishing paternity). ¶ 176 This is a strong indication that we are treading into a domain not meant for us under the terms of the governing statute. “When presented with alternative interpretations of a statutory scheme, we should choose the one that involves the judiciary least in the enterprise of legislative policymaking.” State v. Parduhn, 2011 UT 55, ¶ 72, 283 P.3d 488 (Lee, J., dissenting). Courts should not go looking for opportunities to “become a policymaker instead of an interpreter.” Id. “We should presume that the legislature intended to preserve the respective legislative and judicial roles, with the legislature making policy and the courts construing and applying that policy to cases that come before them.” Id. “If one of two interpretations of a statute that “bear no relation” to the governing terms of the law. Id. For that reason the majority’s Fourth Amendment example is beside the point. See supra ¶ 71 n.27. The text of the Fourth Amendment is framed in terms of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. So of course the Fourth Amendment test is framed as an inquiry into “reasonableness.” See supra ¶ 71 n.27. But that tells us nothing of relevance to the proper test under ICWA. 93 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part conflates those roles, it should accordingly be rejected as contrary to legislative intent.” Id.40 ¶ 177 This should be doubly true in a case, like this one, where the statute we interpret is a federal law addressing a domain long governed exclusively by state law. I see no room for the conclusion that Congress meant for this court to put our policymaker hats on and decide on the best standard for the acknowledgement or establishment of paternity. Surely it’s more likely that its use of settled terms of state law was a signal that Congress was asking us to apply established state law.
¶ 178 The majority finds it “obvious that the plain language” of ICWA does not dictate the application of state law standards of paternity. Supra ¶ 50. It bases that conclusion on its sense of Congress’s “purpose” in enacting ICWA, and on analysis in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), that it views as supportive of its holding. And it claims that my approach violates the traditional meaning of the phrase “term of art.” I find none of these points persuasive. ¶ 179 First, the purported “purpose” of ICWA cannot override the terms of the statute. ICWA, as noted, balances multiple purposes. And we overstep our bounds if we fail to credit the compromised balance of those purposes reflected in the statutory text. Myers v. Myers, 2011 UT 65, ¶ 27, 266 P.3d 806; Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 2011 UT 10, ¶ 23 n.6, 248 P.3d 465. ¶ 180 As noted above, ICWA, at a minimum, is also aimed at preserving the sovereignty of the state courts over adoption and paternity—and in protecting the children whose interests are so keenly implicated in adoption proceedings. Thus, it is entirely correct to say that ICWA was aimed at protecting the integrity of Indian families. But because the statutory purpose was not to advance that purpose at all costs, our inquiry cannot end at that high level of generality. We must 40 See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329– 30 (2006); State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359, 362 (Utah 1995); Bastian v. King, 661 P.2d 953, 956 (Utah 1983). 94 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part consider how Congress struck the balance at the specific level of the terms of the statute.41 ¶ 181 The Holyfield opinion is not to the contrary. Nor does it support the majority’s holding in this case. In Holyfield, the court interpreted a provision in ICWA granting tribal courts the exclusive jurisdiction over custody proceedings involving an Indian child “who resides or is domiciled within” a tribe’s reservation. 490 U.S. at 36 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a)). And, as the majority here indicates, the Holyfield court interpreted the term “domicile” to prescribe a federal standard. Id. at 43–47. In so concluding, moreover, the Holyfield court stated a “general assumption that ‘in the absence of a plain indication to the contrary, . . . Congress when it enacts a statute is not making the application of the federal act dependent on state law.’” Id. at 43 (alteration in original) (quoting Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 104 (1943)). ¶ 182 Yet Holyfield announces no hard and fast rule. Indeed it acknowledges that “Congress sometimes intends that a statutory term be given content by the application of state law.” Id. And the grounds for the court’s holding in Holyfield simply do not apply here. Holyfield is distinguishable. ¶ 183 Holyfield does not conclude that ICWA’s purpose of protecting Indian families mandates a uniform federal standard for all terms in the statute. It acknowledges the contrary. Id. And it begins its analysis with “‘the assumption that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’” Id. at 47 (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962)). Thus, the core holding in Holyfield 41 The majority does refer to some textual provisions of the statute in support of its view. For one, it cites ICWA for the proposition that a parent of an Indian child is entitled to the “higher standard of protection” set forth in state or federal law when such laws “provide[] a higher standard of protection” than that set forth in ICWA. Supra ¶ 67 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1921). And the majority says that this ensures “that parents of Indian children enjoy the highest level of protection of their parental rights available.” Supra ¶ 67. But this is circular. We cannot say whether a supposedly federal standard yields a higher level of protection than that set forth in state law until we know the contents of the federal standard. And, as noted below, the majority ultimately is unwilling to articulate a federal standard. 95 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part is different from the one described by the majority in this case. Holyfield is based on the statutory text. And it holds that “domicile” is a statement of a uniform standard not because ICWA’s broad purpose demands uniformity in all cases, but because “‘[d]omicile’ is . . . a concept widely used in both federal and state courts for jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws purposes, and its meaning is generally uncontroverted.” Id. at 48 (emphasis added). And the uncontroverted meaning includes the standards for demonstrating domicile that are almost universally accepted among federal and state jurisdictions. See id. ¶ 184 Thus, the Holyfield opinion is quite different from the majority opinion in this case. The Holyfield court did not construct its own preferred standard of domicile—a standard informed only by a vague sense that Congress must have meant to provide “less exacting” requirements for Indian parents than the laws of many states. Supra ¶ 71. The Holyfield analysis is textual. It is rooted in the “generally accepted meaning of the term ‘domicile.’” Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 47. ¶ 185 As noted above, there is no such thing as a “generally accepted meaning” of acknowledging or establishing paternity in the sense discussed in Holyfield. As a product of our federalism, the fifty states have adopted a range of procedures and standards for the acknowledgement or establishment of paternity.42 This could not have been a surprise for the Congress that enacted ICWA. ¶ 186 The majority takes issue with this analysis. It claims that I am relying on “an erroneous view of the definition of a term of art.” Supra ¶ 55. Thus, the majority insists that a term of art must have a single “core meaning.” Supra ¶ 56. And the majority rejects my approach on the ground that the state-by-state definitions of acknowledge and establish “do not share a common core.” Supra ¶ 56. From that premise, the majority proceeds to the conclusion that the words acknowledgement and establishment of paternity are ordinary (not legal) terms as used in ICWA. Supra ¶ 58. And the court cites a few cases that purportedly support this conclusion. Supra ¶ 58.43 42 See supra ¶ 170 nn. 34–36. 43 The cited cases say little or nothing of relevance to the interpretation of a federal statute regulating state custody proceedings. Two of the cited cases simply stand for the axiom that courts must not (cont.) 96 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part ¶ 187 None of this adds up in my view. The court’s starting premise is overbroad; it misses the obvious implications of our American federalism. The law of paternity is like many other pockets of state law, with substantial variation from state to state. State law varies widely on a wide range of questions, such as negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, divorce, child custody, and intestate succession. But a federal statute invoking legal terminology from one of these fields would not properly be understood as using the words of the law in an ordinary (non-legal) sense just because there are legal variations from state to state.44 ¶ 188 The terms in question here—acknowledgement and establishment of paternity—moreover, are legal terms with a common “core meaning.” At the heart of every state’s standards for acknowledgement of paternity is the question whether the purported parents have shown that they accept responsibility for the child. read extratextual requirements into undefined terms. See State v. Wolfe, 239 A.2d 509, 512 (Conn. 1968); Carpenter v. Hawley, 281 S.E.2d 783, 786 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). The other two cases are even less helpful to the majority’s cause. One was decided long before state paternity schemes were fleshed out, see Blythe v. Ayres, 31 P. 915, 922 (Cal. 1892), and the other is not a custody proceeding at all. See Estate of Griswold, 24 P.3d 1191, 1194–95 (Cal. 2001) (determining whether a father’s admission of paternity in a “bastardy proceeding” was sufficient to acknowledge paternity under a different state’s probate code). In any event, none of the cases interpret a federal statute. So none of them supports the majority’s conclusion that terms utilized by every state’s adoption scheme must be given an independent, ordinary (non-legal) meaning under a federal statute regulating those schemes. 44 One example is evident in ICWA itself. ICWA recognizes as a parent “any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) (emphasis added). The reference to an adoption clearly invokes state law, as there is no such thing as a federal adoption. Yet under the majority’s approach, the term “adopt” would invoke a new federal standard incorporating the ordinary sense of adopt and ignoring state standards of adoption (which vary widely from state to state). That of course makes no sense. And it makes no more sense as applied to the acknowledgement or establishment of paternity. 97 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part Acknowledge, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (defining “acknowledge” as “[t]o show that one accepts responsibility for ”). Establishment of paternity also has a core meaning. This is the legal notion that the purported parents “settle, make, or fix firmly” that they are the true parents of the child. Establish, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009).45 There are variations across the fifty states as to the procedure or standards for acknowledging or establishing paternity. But those variations stem from each state’s policy preferences and prerogatives. They do not undefine these legal terms of art. ¶ 189 If a statute speaks the language of the law, then we interpret that term in accordance with established legal conventions. This is a settled tenet of the law of interpretation.46 And that tenet does not change just because we find a lack of a single, clear meaning of the legal term in question.47 45 See also 14 C.J.S. Children Out-of-Wedlock § 111 (describing the different burdens of proof in suits to establish paternity); UNIF. ACT ON PARENTAGE §§ 3, 6 (1973) (authorizing a “natural father” to establish his paternity through court action). 46 See F.A.A. v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284, 292 (2012) (citing cases for the “cardinal rule of statutory construction” that “when Congress employs a term of art, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); Maxfield v. Herbert, 2012 UT 44, ¶ 31, 284 P.3d 647 (“When the legislature ‘borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken.’” (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952)). 47 See Cooper, 566 U.S. at 292–94 (noting that “the meaning of ‘actual damages’ [in the federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A)] is far from clear,” in that it “is sometimes understood to include nonpecuniary harm” but also “has been used . . . more narrowly to authorize damages for only pecuniary harm,” but proceeding to find a legal definition based on the “particular context in which the term appears” in the statute). 98 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part ¶ 190 Where a legal term is employed, we can understand the term only by reference to the norms and conventions of that language. The language of the law is like a distinct dialect.48 And we will misunderstand the dialect if we ignore its norms and conventions. ¶ 191 Granted, it is possible to speak of acknowledging or establishing paternity without reference to the law. But a statutory reference to these established legal terms should be viewed against the backdrop of the law. And we will misunderstand or misuse the terminology if we ignore its legal context.49 The majority commits this fatal error in its approach. ¶ 192 In my view it is beside the point that “Utah law requires the birth mother’s signature in addition to the unmarried biological father’s signature” as a condition of an acknowledgement “through a declaration of paternity.” Supra ¶ 67. Surely that does not mean that “the unmarried biological father’s option to acknowledge paternity is . . . read out of ICWA.”50 Supra ¶ 67. It simply means that E.T. failed to 48 See Michael B. Rappaport & John O. McGinnis, The Constitution and the Language of the Law (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 17-262, 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2928936. 49 An acknowledgement or establishment of paternity is like a declaration of bankruptcy. We can speak of declaring bankruptcy in the ordinary sense of a mere utterance. But in so doing we will be misusing the language—by missing its clear legal connotation. Cf. The Office: Money (NBC television broadcast Oct. 18, 2007) (Michael Scott: “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!” Oscar: “Hey, I just wanted you to know, that you can’t just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen.” Michael Scott: “I didn’t say it, I declared it.” Oscar: “Still … that’s … it’s not anything.”). 50 I see nothing telling about the fact that the district court in this case did not “seriously analyze whether Birth Father acknowledged paternity under Utah law, instead focusing on whether he complied with the requirements for establishing paternity under Utah law.” Supra ¶ 67. Presumably, that is just a reflection of the parties’ advocacy—of the fact that E.T. didn’t argue that he secured his paternity through an acknowledgement because he knew he could not qualify under Utah law. That doesn’t tell us that acknowledgement of paternity is “read out (cont.) 99 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part secure his paternity through an acknowledgement under Utah law. ICWA’s bare reference to acknowledgement or establishment of paternity cannot properly be read as a guarantee that a given putative father will qualify under either. It is simply an indication that either means of securing rights of paternity in a given state’s law will suffice as a matter of federal Indian law. And certainly E.T. could have secured his paternity rights under Utah law; he simply failed to do so in any of the means required by our law. ¶ 193 There is likewise nothing “anomalous” about the notion that “an unmarried biological Indian father’s status as a parent under ICWA” depends on his compliance with the laws of the state where the child is born. Supra ¶ 69. That is not some unforeseen oddity of my reading of ICWA; it is an inherent feature of our longstanding system of federalism that was well-known to Congress—a system in which parental rights are a creature of state law, and thus may be established under the various laws of the fifty states. ¶ 194 The alternative, moreover, is a make-it-up-as-we-go standard—a standard without any real content, except the notion that a biological father must meet an undefined “reasonability standard” that is “less exacting” than the requirements of Utah law. Supra ¶ 71. That seems close to an admission that the court has no standard. And the lack of a standard assures that the majority cannot ultimately live up to its premises. ¶ 195 Instead the majority offers only a bare holding—that E.T.’s “actions satisfied the requirements for acknowledging paternity under ICWA using a reasonability standard.” Supra ¶ 74. And the court simply lists the facts it deems sufficient under the circumstances of this case. That is a further admission that we are not stating a legal standard but only a disposition of this case. ¶ 196 Perhaps that’s understandable. The logic of the court’s opinion, after all, is one that can lead only to the conclusion that any bare “acknowledgement” of paternity, however minimal, must suffice as a matter of federal Indian law. To support its holding, the majority points to hurdles set by Utah law that E.T. has not satisfied. See supra ¶ 67. And it concludes that Utah law is too “exacting.” Supra ¶ 71. of ICWA.” It says only that E.T. cannot secure his rights through such a filing. 100 Cite as: 2017 UT 59 Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part Thus, it is unacceptable, in the court’s view, to allow “state law to determine who is a parent under ICWA” because that “would, in some cases, provide a lower level of protection of parental rights than ICWA intends.” Supra ¶ 67. With this in mind, the court sets forth a vague reasonability standard that purports to be more protective “of parental rights pertaining to Indian children.” Supra ¶ 71. ¶ 197 But why stop there? The logic of the court’s opinion will lead inevitably to the most minimally “exacting” acknowledgement of paternity imaginable. Anything less, after all, could sustain the same conclusion reached in this case—that ICWA’s purpose is to protect the rights of Indian tribal members, and that allowing state law (or any law except a minimalist acknowledgement) “to determine who is a parent under ICWA would . . . provide a lower level of protection of parental rights than ICWA intends.”51 Supra ¶ 67. ¶ 198 The majority apparently perceives the problem with that approach. If any bare acknowledgement by a putative father will do, then the statutory definition will be eviscerated: All unwed putative fathers will become entitled to notice and a right to intervene because any father can plausibly say he made a bare acknowledgement of paternity at some point. And that cannot be. See VCS, Inc. v. Utah Cmty. Bank, 2012 UT 89, ¶ 18, 293 P.3d 290 (noting that an interpretation that would “swallow” statutory language “runs afoul of the settled canon of preserving independent meaning for all statutory provisions”). ¶ 199 Presumably that is why the court stops short of stating a meaningful standard. Perhaps it acknowledges that we cannot defensibly pick a paternity standard out of the air. But unless we are willing to set the bar at the lowest imaginable level, the logic of the court’s opinion will always call for us to set it lower; otherwise we will have a standard that is too “exacting” to satisfy the purpose of ICWA. So the court, naturally, is left to state no meaningful standard at all. 51 This is the problem with the purposivist approach to statutory interpretation. If we view statutes as aimed at accomplishing their perceived purpose at all costs, we are embarked on an endless journey. We may say that ICWA is aimed at articulating a uniform standard to protect the rights of Indian families. But if that’s all it is, then we must stop at nothing in our efforts to vindicate that purpose. And the only way to stop at nothing is to say that even the barest acknowledgement of paternity is enough to satisfy the statute. 101 Adoption of B.B. Lee, A.C.J., Opinion of the Court in part ¶ 200 And that is also untenable—and completely at odds with the core premise of the court’s opinion. The majority’s premise is that Congress could not have intended a state-law-based notion of acknowledgement or establishment of paternity because it intended a nationwide uniform standard. See supra ¶ 71. Yet the court’s holding assures the exact opposite. This court today says that Utah law has set the paternity bar too high. But absent any meaningful legal standard, our opinion today assures a complete lack of uniformity. If today’s opinion takes hold in other states, it will guarantee chaos and unpredictability—not uniformity. It will invite each court faced with the paternity question to offer its own subjective assessment of what is a “reasonable” acknowledgment of paternity and whether the state or tribal paternity laws in question are too “exacting.” Supra ¶ 71. ¶ 201 The majority’s approach may also produce devastating unintended consequences. By recognizing an unwed father’s right to notice and intervention upon a vague, informal “acknowledgement” of paternity, and ignoring the backward-looking requirement of paternity that “has . . . been acknowledged,” the court opens the door to the possibility that a putative Indian father will come forward months or even years later and assert a right to disrupt even a finalized adoption. If and when this eventuality arises, perhaps the courts will find a “reasonability” time bar or estoppel basis to avoid this disruption. But I see no basis for it on the face of ICWA. So as the law stands there is no assurance that an adoption of an Indian child will ever be truly final. The court’s approach leaves open the possibility of disruption of any adoption of an Indian child whose biological father might one day claim to have “acknowledged” his paternity. ¶ 202 This cannot be what Congress had in mind when it limited the rights of notice and intervention to unwed fathers who have had their paternity acknowledged or established. Surely Congress meant for courts to apply a fixed legal standard. And because ICWA uses settled terms of art from family law, I would interpret it to incorporate state (and tribal) law on this question. I would accordingly affirm the district court’s denial of E.T.’s motion to dismiss.