Opinion ID: 901112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continued Custody Would Likely Result In Serious

Text: Emotional Or Physical Damage To The Children. [Â¶ 24. ] [C]hild custody proceedings involving the termination of parental rights to an Indian child are subject to specific minimum federal procedures and standards. ICWA provides: 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. 25 USC Â§ 1912(f). Thus, the burden of proof that must be shown is âevidence beyond a reasonable doubt.â Id . [Â¶ 25. ] The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that serious emotional or physical harm to the children would result from continued custody with parents. The trial court entered the following findings beyond a reasonable doubt:

10. Mother has not completed the Community Transitions program. 11. Mother has failed to obtain individual counseling as required by her chemical dependency evaluation. 12. Mother has failed to participate and meet with Parents as Teachers. 13. Mother has not identified anyone, other than Father, to be a support to her as a parent, a requirement recognized by both the Stateâs and her own witness. 14. Mother has failed to complete parenting classes. 15. Mother has failed to maintain a level of consistency with her medication and has gone to the emergency room on a number of occasions. 16. Mother has failed to appear for 30 visits with her children. These findings are amply supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Based on these findings, the trial court did not err in determining continued custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage beyond a reasonable doubt. ISSUE FOUR [Â¶ 26. ] Did the trial court err in determining termination was the least restrictive alternative in the best interests of the children. [Â¶ 27. ] Mother contends that the least restrictive alternative would be allowing her continued custody with supervision by DSS. We have always recognized that the needs of the children are paramount and that their best interests must prevail. In re A.H., 421 NW2d 71, 75 (SD 1988). Parental rights may be terminated if it is in the best interests of the children and is also the least restrictive alternative available. SDCL 26-8A-26. The best interests of the children are viewed from the childrenâs, not the parentsâ, perspective. In re E.D.J., 499 NW2d 130, 135 (SD 1993). [Â¶ 28. ] The parents assert that they have made tremendous strides which support the imposition of other alternatives in lieu of termination. The trial courtâs findings, however, contradict that assessment. These children are desperately in need of safety, certainty and stability in their lives. The parents did not reach a point where they could adequately provide for the children during the nineteen months this matter was pending and it is uncertain if they ever will. Further delay in the search for permanency is not in the best interests of these children. [Â¶ 29. ] Affirmed. [Â¶ 30. ] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, participating. 1. Dr. Perrenoud was not the only doctor recommending this. Dr. Mulder from the Pine Ridge Indian Health Services also opined âIn my limited opinion I do not believe [Mother] is capable of child-care and child protection in emergencies.â Motherâs own witness, Dr. Simpson, also recognized this as an essential requirement. Motherâs pastor also acknowledged a need for assistance. 2. The children all suffer from traits associated with reactive attachment disorder. B.B.C. also suffers from attention deficit disorder and a learning disability. 3. The dispositional hearings were conducted on four occasions. Father was absent twice, Mother was absent once.