Opinion ID: 1369253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: does appellant have standing to challenge this adoption under the federal and oklahoma indian child welfare acts?

Text: The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) [11] is structured around the concern that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and placed in non-Indian homes and institutions. [12] Congress has declared the policy of this Nation in passing the ICWA as follows: ... [T]o protect the best interest of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.... [13] The central thrust and concern of the ICWA is, therefore, the establishment of minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families. Numerous provisions of the act support this conclusion. Section 1901(4) states: [A]n alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them... . Section 1911(a) provides exclusive jurisdiction in the Indian tribe: Over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation... . Section 1912 addresses pending court proceedings. Subsection (d) requires: Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child under State law shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful. (emphasis added). Subsection (e) declares: No foster care placement may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. (emphasis added). Subsection (f) states: No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. (emphasis added). The Indian Child Welfare Act is applicable, therefore, when we are confronted with the removal of Indian children from their families. The purpose of the act is to promote the best interest of Indian children through promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families. The act is applicable when you have Indian children being removed from their existing Indian environment. Oklahoma also has an Indian Child Welfare Act (OICWA). [14] The stated purpose of the act is the clarification of state policies and procedures regarding the implementation by the State of Oklahoma of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act and to cooperate fully with Indian tribes in Oklahoma in order to insure that the intent and provisions of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act are enforced. [15] The Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act applies when the ICWA is applicable. [16] The appellant claims that he has standing under the Indian Child Welfare Act to challenge the validity of the adoption of his newborn son based upon violations of Sections 1911, 1912 and 1913 of the ICWA. Section 1911 gives Indian tribes jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of the tribe. Section 1912 addresses pending court proceedings concerning any involuntary proceeding in a state court where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved. This section requires notice to the parents and to the Indian child's tribe. Section 1913 deals with an Indian parent or custodian giving voluntary consent to a foster care placement or termination of parental rights. The appellant alleges that these three sections were violated in different specific instances and, therefore, the appellant has standing under Section 1914 which allows: [A]ny parent ... from whose custody such [Indian] child was removed ... may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provisions of Sections 1911, 1912, and 1913... . The ICWA defines parent as follows: `[P]arent' means any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom. It does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established. [17] The ICWA definition of parent does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established. Further, Section 1914 grants standing to invalidate an action only to the parent from whose custody such child was removed. The appellant made no attempt to acknowledge or establish paternity until he filed his petition to vacate the decree of adoption in the District Court of Stephens County. Until such time as a father has acknowledged or established paternity, the ICWA is not applicable. Congress has by this language evidenced its intent not to extend the ICWA to the child born out of wedlock as in the instant case, whose father has never had custody and has not acknowledged or established paternity. We take this to mean acknowledged or established through the procedures available through the tribal courts, consistent with tribal customs, or through procedures established by state law. [18] Until paternity is acknowledged or established, an unwed Indian father has failed to lay legal claim to the child and the ICWA is not applicable. [19] This construction of the ICWA is in accord with the stated purpose of the act to protect Indian children from the destruction of Indian family units by child welfare agencies and courts. The ICWA emphasizes that the Congress seeks to protect the Indian child by setting minimum federal standards for the removal of that Indian child from an existing Indian family unit. [20] Here we have a child who has never resided in an Indian family, and who has a non-Indian mother. For the foregoing reasons we conclude appellant lacks standing to invoke the ICWA in this case.