Opinion ID: 2046927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ICWA and ASFA

Text: [¶ 13.] In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) after concluding that (1) it has plenary power over Indian affairs; (2) it has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources; and (3) 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 that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions. 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (1978). Congress had a particular concern with the disproportionately higher rates of parental terminations with Indian families caused by an insensitivity to Indian cultural values and social norms[,] leading to misevaluations of parenting skills and to unequal considerations of such matters as parental alcohol abuse. American Indian Law Deskbook, p. 463 (3rd ed. 2004) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 10 (1978), reprinted in 1978 USCCAN 7530, 7532); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1901(4) (1978). [¶ 14.] The declared policy of ICWA is to protect the best interests 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, and by providing for assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service programs. 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (1978) (emphasis added). This policy acknowledges that Indian children should retain familial, tribal, and cultural ties. As noted in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), in enacting ICWA, Congress recognized that placement of Indian children in non-Indian homes was not in their best interests. The Court cited Dr. Joseph Westermeyer's testimony: [Indian children] were raised with a white cultural and social identity. They are raised in a white home. They attended, [sic] predominantly white schools, and in almost all cases, attended a church that was predominantly white, and really came to understand very little about Indian culture, Indian behavior, and had virtually no viable Indian identity. They can recall such things as seeing cowboys and Indians on TV and feeling that Indians were a historical figure but were not a viable contemporary social group. Then during adolescence, they found that society was not to grant them the white identity that they had. They began to find this out in a number of ways. For example, a universal experience was that when they began to date white children, the parents of the white youngsters were against this, and there were pressures among white children from the parents not to date these Indian children.... The other experience was derogatory name calling in relation to their racial identity....    [T]hey were finding that society was putting on them an identity which they didn't possess and taking from them an identity that they did possess. Id. at 33 n. 1, 109 S.Ct. at 1600 n. 1 (internal citations omitted). [¶ 15.] To ensure that the best interests of Indian children are protected, ICWA (1) establishes either exclusive or presumptive jurisdiction in tribal courts; (2) grants special intervention rights to Indian tribes; (3) mandates that before an Indian parent's or custodian's rights to a child can be terminated, a finding must be made 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; and (4) guarantees that no parental rights will be terminated without a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that 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 U.S.C. § 1911(a) (1978); 25 USC § 1911(c) (1978); 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (1978); 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (1978); see generally 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (1978). [¶ 16.] The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) was enacted in 1997 as a response to congressional concerns that prior legislation acted as a barrier to the adoption of abused and neglected children. In re D.B., 2003 SD 113, ¶ 10, 670 N.W.2d 67, 70. Under ASFA, in considering reunification of parents with children, `the balancing formula should tip on the side of protecting children, and not on the side of protecting the rights of parents.' Id. (following New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Serv. v. A.R.G., 361 N.J.Super. 46, 824 A.2d 213, 233 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2003)). [¶ 17.] ICWA differs from ASFA in its means of promoting Indian children's best interests. ICWA ensures the best interests of Indian children by maintaining their familial, tribal, and cultural ties. It seeks to prevent capricious severance of those ties, whereas ASFA identifies permanency as a major consideration in promoting the best interests of children. A further distinction between the two acts, and at issue here, is the requirement in ICWA that state agencies make active efforts to provide services aimed at the prevention of a family breakup. ICWA provides no exception to this mandate. On the other hand, in an attempt to assist states in increasing the speed with which children might achieve the desired goal of permanency, ASFA recognizes certain circumstances under which no reasonable efforts may be necessary. ASFA relieves states from making merely perfunctory remedial efforts in cases where a court has found that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances of abuse or neglect.