Opinion ID: 2765521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determination of Good Cause

Text: ¶24 We have explained, as noted above, that “the use of the term ‘good cause’ was designed to provide state courts with flexibility in determining the disposition of a placement proceeding involving an Indian child.” In re T.S., 245 Mont. at 246, 801 P.2d at 80 (citing 44 Fed. Reg. 67584). We have held that, pursuant to this flexibility given to state courts, “the ‘best interests of the child’ test will be applied in Montana in determining good cause not to transfer jurisdiction of custody proceedings of Indian children under § 1911(b).” In re T.S., 245 Mont. at 247, 801 P.2d at 80 (citing In re M.E.M., 195 Mont. 329, 336, 635 P.2d 1313, 1317, (1981)). We have called this a “jurisdictional ‘best interests of the child’ test” that “should not be confused with” other best interests of the child tests used in different contexts. In re T.S., 245 Mont. at 247, 801 P.2d at 80. In order to satisfy the jurisdictional best interests of the child test, “the State must provide ‘clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be injured by such a transfer.’” In re J.W.C., 2011 MT 312, ¶ 28, 363 Mont. 85, 265 P.3d 1265 (citing In re T.S., 245 Mont. at 245, 801 P.2d at 79).6 ¶25 To aid state courts in interpreting and applying ICWA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has published guidelines, with accompanying commentary, in the Federal Register. Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe: Provided, that such transfer shall be subject to declination by the tribal court of such tribe.” 6 The Tribe argues that a brief statement made by the District Court during the hearing—“that’s the burden I see on the tribe”—demonstrates that the court improperly shifted this burden from the State to the Tribe. However, despite the possible legal error that could be inferred by the statement, it is clear from its written order that the District Court properly required the State to meet this burden. 12 67584-67595 (Nov. 26, 1979) (hereinafter, Guidelines). The Guidelines are “not published as regulations because they are not intended to have binding legislative effect.” In re T.S., 245 Mont. at 246, 801 P.2d at 80 (citation omitted). However, the Guidelines are persuasive authority and this Court considers them when interpreting ICWA. In re