Opinion ID: 2632644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Application of the Acts.

Text: ¶ 19 The mother insists that a refusal to apply the existing Indian family exception to the present cause could result in an unconstitutional application of the Acts. She relies primarily on the California Court of Appeals decision In re Bridget R., 41 Cal.App.4th 1483, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 507, 529, (1996), cert. denied Cindy R. v. James R., 519 U.S. 1060, 117 S.Ct. 693, 136 L.Ed.2d 616 (1997) to support her argument. ¶ 20 Bridget, supra, involved a father of Indian twins who sought to rescind his voluntary relinquishment of parental rights. After the trial court determined the relinquishment invalid, the appellate court reversed, holding that the Act would be unconstitutional and violate the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments unless it was limited by the existing Indian family doctrine. ¶ 21 In another California Court of Appeals case, In re Santos Y, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 692, 731 (2001), the court reached a conclusion similar to the Bridget, supra, case. Santos, supra, involved a constitutional challenge to a trial court order which required the transfer of a child to placement with a member of the Indian tribe to which the child's sole connection was one-quarter genetic contribution from the mother who was an enrolled tribal member. The Santos court held that the application of the federal Act was unconstitutional under the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when the child's sole connection to the tribe was the genetic contribution. ¶ 22 The Supreme Court of North Dakota rejected the rationale and constitutional analysis used by the California Appellate Courts in In the Interest of A. B., 2003 N.D. 98, 663 N.W.2d 625 (2003), cert. denied Hoots ex rel. A.B. v. K.B., ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 1875, 158 L.Ed.2d 466 (2004). A.B. involved the transfer of jurisdiction of a parental termination proceeding from state juvenile court to tribal court. The County argued that the transfer would be unconstitutional relying on the California Court of Appeals' decisions. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the transfer was not unconstitutional. It determined that: 1) the United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that laws which treat Indians as a distinct class violate equal protection; 2) the different treatment of Indians and non-Indians under the Act is based on the political status of the parents and children and the sovereign nature of the tribe; 3) the substantive due process and equal protection challenges were subject to a rational basis analysis and the Act was rationally related to the protection of the integrity of American Indian families and tribes and is rationally related to the fulfillment of Congress's unique guardianship obligations toward Indians; and 4) Congress's plenary power to legislate Indian matters is well established and the Act is a rational exercise of that power which does not violate the Tenth Amendment. ¶ 23 We agree with the North Dakota Supreme Court's rationale and find it equally applicable to the present cause. We hold that the Acts are not unconstitutional as applied to this cause.