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

Heading: the indian child welfare act and public law

Text: 280 JURISDICTION
Resolution of Mary Doe’s case requires us to decide whether her tribe has exclusive jurisdiction in a child dependency proceeding. We begin with § 1911(a), which provides: An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a) (emphasis added). The “existing Federal law” proviso in § 1911(a) has been interpreted to include a federal law popularly referred to as “Public Law 280,” which gives certain states, including California, broad jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed in Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a), and limited jurisdiction over civil causes of action that arise in Indian country, 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). See 12 See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5) (“Congress finds . . . that the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.”). 8434 DOE v. MANN Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 42 n.16 (1989). No other “existing Federal law” is applicable here. The first step is to determine whether the proceeding “involv[es] an Indian child who resides or is domiciled” on the reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a). Jane, who no one disputes is an Indian child, was domiciled on her reservation when the child dependency proceedings in this case commenced. The next step is to determine whether the dependency proceeding at issue falls within the meaning of “any child custody proceeding.” Id. Again, the statutory language provides an easy answer as “child custody proceeding” is defined to include “termination of parental rights,” which means “any action resulting in the termination of the parent-child relationship,” and “adoptive placement,” which means “the permanent placement of an Indian child for adoption, including any action resulting in a final decree of adoption.” 25 U.S.C. §§ 1903(1)(ii), (iv). These are precisely the actions taken in the proceedings at issue here. [10] On its face, § 1911(a) poses little difficulty in interpretation. The wrinkle comes in interpreting Public Law 280, which is embedded within § 1911. Section 1911(a) provides in unambiguous terms that the tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child residing or domiciled on the reservation unless jurisdiction is vested in a state under Public Law 280. Thus, we must decide whether Public Law 280 vested California with jurisdiction to terminate Mary Doe’s parental rights and order the adoption of Jane. The answer to that question lies in the interplay between California’s child dependency law and Public Law 280. The California child dependency law, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 et seq., permits the state to commence dependency proceedings in juvenile court, § 325, if a child’s status falls DOE v. MANN 8435 within various categories, including that the child suffered or is at substantial risk of physical harm, § 300(b), or the child has been or is at substantial risk of being sexually abused, § 300(d). The law permits the state, under certain circumstances, to petition for the termination of parental rights over a child previously judged to be a dependent of the juvenile court. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26. [11] Determining whether the state had jurisdiction under Public Law 280 to enforce its child dependency law requires us to categorize the state dependency law as either criminal, civil regulatory, or civil adjudicatory. If the child dependency law embodies either a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a) or a civil cause of action (civil adjudicatory) under 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a), then the tribe does not have exclusive jurisdiction under § 1911(a) and the state properly exercised jurisdiction. If, however, California’s dependency law is a regulatory statute, then the tribe had exclusive jurisdiction and the parental rights determination is invalid. See Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 390 (1976) (Public Law 280 did not give the states “general civil regulatory powers” over tribes and their members in Indian country). Mary Doe argues that California’s dependency law falls into the civil regulatory category and thus outside the state’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction. See Bryan, 426 U.S. at 390. She asks us to reach this conclusion by drawing a distinction between involuntary and voluntary custody proceedings. She maintains that involuntary child dependency proceedings are regulatory because they involve intervention by the state, through its sovereign authority, in a parent-child relationship. This type of proceeding, according to Mary Doe, contrasts with voluntary proceedings such as private adoptions, which involve only private parties and are not regulatory. The Department of Social Services and Court-Appellees also stake their analysis on an interpretation of Public Law 280. In their view, the dependency statute falls under either 8436 DOE v. MANN the criminal or the civil adjudicatory category, meaning that the tribe lacks exclusive jurisdiction. They argue that the voluntary/involuntary dichotomy is a false one and should not inform our analysis. Although California’s child dependency statute may not fit neatly into any of the Public Law 280 jurisdictional boxes, construing ICWA as a whole and considering child dependency proceedings in the context of both ICWA and Public Law 280, we conclude that the California statute does not fall within Public Law 280’s criminal jurisdiction, but that it does fall within Public Law 280’s civil adjudicatory jurisdiction. Embedded in this determination is the conclusion that the child dependency statute is not regulatory in nature. Thus, under ICWA, the tribe does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the child dependency proceeding because “jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the state [of California] by existing Federal law.” 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a). Before delving into the application of Public Law 280, we take a detour to explain the contours of ICWA and Public Law 280, which provide the foundation for our analysis.
Congress passed ICWA in 1978 in response to a growing concern that Indian children were removed from their homes by state child protection officials at an alarmingly high rate and placed in foster care or adoption settings outside their Indian communities and culture. See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(4); Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 32. “At the heart of ICWA” lies a jurisdictional scheme aimed at ensuring that tribes have a role in adjudicating and participating in child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled both on and off the reservation. Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 36. This aim is reflected in § 1911(a)’s broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction to most tribes. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a). As we have explained, the “existing Federal law” proviso in § 1911(a), providing tribes with exclusive jurisdiction “exDOE v. MANN 8437 cept where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law,” is the crux of this case. Although the text of the proviso does not specifically identify Public Law 280, the legislative history surrounding the adoption of § 1911(a) and subsequent court decisions confirm that Congress was referring, at least in part, to Public Law 280. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 32 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7554 (letter from Department of Interior); H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 40, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7563 (letter from Department of Justice); Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 42 n.16; Native Village of Venetie I, 944 F.2d at 555. An earlier draft of ICWA, House Resolution 12533, included a provision similar to § 1911(a) but did not refer to “existing” federal laws: “Sec. 101. (a) An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any placement of an Indian child who resides on or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe.” Court-Appellees’ Answer Brief at App. 22. During consideration of this earlier legislation, the Departments of Justice and Interior alerted Congress that this section could strip states of jurisdiction already existing where Public Law 280 applied. The Department of the Interior stated, “We believe that reservations located in States subject to Public Law 83-280 should be specifically excluded from section 101(a) . . . .”13 The Department of Justice voiced similar concerns in two letters to Congress: As you may be aware, the courts have consistently recognized that tribal governments have exclusive jurisdiction over the domestic relationships of tribal members located on reservations, unless a State has assumed concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Federal legislation such as Public Law 83-280 . . . . [S]ection 101(a) of the House draft, if read literally, would appear to displace any existing State court jurisdic13 Letter from Forrest J. Gerard, Assistant Secretary of Interior, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 32, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7554. 8438 DOE v. MANN tion over these matters based on Public Law 83-280. We doubt that is the intent of the draft because, inter alia, there may not be in existence tribal courts to assume such State-court jurisdiction as would apparently be obliterated by this provision.14 After these letters were received, Congress amended the legislation to include the “existing Federal law” proviso that became law.
Twenty-five years prior to the passage of ICWA, Congress adopted Public Law 280, legislation that provides six “mandatory” states, including California,15 with jurisdiction over criminal and some civil matters arising in Indian country.16 The criminal jurisdiction conferred by Public Law 280 is expansive: Each of the States or Territories listed . . . shall have 14 Letters of Patricia M. Wald, Assistant Attorney General, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 35, 40, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7558, 7563. 15 The five other mandatory states are Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). Alaska was added by amendment in 1958. See Native Village of Venetie I, 944 F.2d at 560. In a few of these states, specific reservations are exempted from the state’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction, but all Indian country in California is subject to the state’s criminal and civil Public Law 280 jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). 16 Until amended in 1968, Public Law 280 permitted states that were not designated as mandatory Public Law 280 states by the statute to assert similar jurisdiction over Indian country within state borders. See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 471 n.9 (1979) (quoting original text of Public Law 280). Thus, for example, Washington, Idaho, Florida, and Iowa also asserted various degrees of Public Law 280 jurisdiction. These states are sometimes referred to as “non-mandatory” Public Law 280 states. After 1968, no additional states could assert jurisdiction under Public Law 280 without tribal consent. DOE v. MANN 8439 jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed . . . to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a). The civil jurisdiction conferred by Public Law 280, on the other hand, is more circumscribed: Each of the States listed . . . shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country listed . . . to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). The legislative history of Public Law 280 reveals that Congress was motivated to confer criminal jurisdiction on the states due to “lawlessness” on Indian reservations: In many States, tribes are not adequately organized to perform that function; consequently, there has been created a hiatus in law-enforcement authority that could best be remedied by conferring criminal jurisdiction on States indicating an ability and willingness to accept such responsibility. S. Rep. No. 699 (1953), reprinted in 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2409, 2411-12. 8440 DOE v. MANN In contrast, the civil component of Public Law 280 was adopted with a “virtual absence of expression of congressional policy or intent.” Bryan, 426 U.S. at 381. What little published legislative history exists provides only the following explanation for the civil jurisdiction: Similarly, the Indians of several States have reached a state of acculturation and development that makes desirable extension of State civil jurisdiction to the Indian country within their borders. Permitting the State courts to adjudicate civil controversies arising on Indian reservations, and to extend to those reservations the substantive civil laws of the respective States insofar as those laws are of general application to private persons or private property, is deemed desirable. S. Rep. No. 699 (1953), reprinted in 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2409, 2412. In Bryan, one of the seminal cases construing Public Law 280, the Court concluded that Congress intended to confer civil jurisdiction in Public Law 280 states to “redress the lack of adequate Indian forums for resolving private legal disputes between reservation Indians, and between Indians and other private citizens, by permitting the courts of the States to decide such disputes . . . .” 426 U.S. at 383. However, the Court emphasized that the legislative history included no indication of “an intention to confer general state civil regulatory control over Indian reservations.” Id. at 384.
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.