Opinion ID: 2632644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Federal and Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Acts and The Existing Indian Family Exception.

Text: ¶ 11 The mother argues that because this proceeding does not involve the dissolution of an Indian family or the removal of custody from the Indian parent, it falls under the existing Indian family exception to the Acts. The federal Act [10] was enacted in response to concerns regarding the consequences to Indian children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of state child welfare practices which had separated Indian children from their families and tribes. [11] To address these concerns, the Act provides minium Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which reflect the unique values of Indian culture. [12] ¶ 12 The federal Act governs Indian child custody proceedings, including termination of parental rights and adoptions. [13] It sets forth standards for terminating parental rights [14] and it recognizes the applicability of social and cultural standards. [15] The standards mandated by the federal Act preempt any state law which provides a lower standard of protection for the rights of the parent or the Indian custodian of an Indian Child. [16] The Oklahoma Act [17] implements the federal Act. [18] It is undisputed that this child is an Indian child within the meaning of both Acts. ¶ 13 The watershed opinion was rendered in 1989, when the United States Supreme Court decided Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), a case involving two young Indian parents who sought an adoption by non-Indians of newly-born twins. Although the parents lived on the reservation, they traveled away from the reservation for the birth of the children. The tribe opposed the adoption and sought jurisdiction in tribal court. The United States Supreme Court held that the children were domiciled on the reservation within the meaning of the federal Act's exclusive tribal court jurisdiction provision, even though the children were not present on the reservation. ¶ 14 In discussing the purpose and meaning of the Act, the Holyfield Court recognized that Congress was concerned not only about the interests of Indian children and families, but also about the impact on the tribes because of the large numbers of Indian children being adopted by non-Indians. The Court stated that: ... [I]t is clear that Congress' concern over the placement of Indian children in non-Indian homes was based in part on evidence of the detrimental impact on the children themselves of such placements outside their culture. Congress determined to subject such placements to the ICWA's jurisdictional and other provisions, even in cases where parents consented to an adoption, because of concerns going beyond the wishes of individual parents.... ¶ 15 In 1992, this Court examined Holyfield's implications. [19] In the Matter of S.C., 1992 OK 98, ¶ 21, 833 P.2d 1249 involved an Indian father who attempted to invalidate foster care after the non-Indian mother's parental rights were terminated. The father alleged that Holyfield, supra, controlled the cause. The Court determined that Holyfield was inapplicable, and it held that the federal Act did not permit a non-custodial Indian parent to invalidate foster care placement. The Court also reaffirmed the application of the existing Indian family exception to Indian child custody proceedings in Oklahoma, largely ignoring Holyfield's language. ¶ 16 In 1994, within two years after our decision in S.C., supra, the Oklahoma Legislature, apparently in response to our opinions and in recognition of the Holyfield teaching, amended the Oklahoma Act. Prior to the amendment, 10 O.S.1991 § 40.1 provided: The purpose of the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act is the clarification of state policies and procedures regarding the implementation by the State of Oklahoma of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act, P.L. 95-608. It shall be the policy of the state to cooperate fully with Indian tribes in Oklahoma in order to ensure that the intent and provisions of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act are enforced. Title 10 O.S.1991 § 40.3 provided in pertinent part: ... B. The Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act applies only to a child who is a member of an Indian tribe or who is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe ... ¶ 17 Section 40.1 was amended in 1994. It provides: The purpose of the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act is the clarification of state policies and procedures regarding the implementation by the State of Oklahoma of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act P.L. 95-608. It shall be the policy of the state to recognize that Indian tribes and nations have a valid governmental interest in Indian children regardless of whether or not said children are in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian at the time state proceedings are initiated. It shall be the policy of the state to cooperate fully with Indian tribes in Oklahoma in order to ensure that the intent and provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act are enforced. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, 10 O.S.2001 § 40.3, was amended in 1994 and provides in pertinent part: ... B. Except as provided for in subsection A of this section, the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act applies to all state voluntary and involuntary child custody court proceedings involving Indian children, regardless of whether or not the children involved are in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian at the time the state proceedings are initiated.... (Emphasis added.) ¶ 18 When ascertaining legislative intent, the Court must presume that when adopting an amendment, the Legislature had knowledge of the law as it previously existed and had in mind the judicial construction placed on the law. [20] Under the current statutory scheme, the Oklahoma Act controls regardless of whether the child or children involved in the proceeding are in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian when the state proceedings are initiated. The change in the statute is an explicit repudiation of the existing Indian family exception. [21]