Opinion ID: 1172030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: burden of proof for adjudication of an indian child's deprived status

Text: The mother contends that the State did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that her conduct was likely to cause serious emotional or physical harm to N.L. This is so, she asserts, because the trial court did not rely on evidence from qualified expert witnesses' within the meaning of § 1912. In short, her position is that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to affect her parental status. Section 1912(e) of the ICWA provides that no foster care placement may be ordered unless there is ... clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent of Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damages to the child. [15] [Emphasis added.] The BIA guidelines provide that under the ICWA an expert witness should have knowledge of tribal customs concerning family organization and child rearing practices. The expert may be a member of the tribe, one who has substantial experience in rendering family services to Indians, or a professional who has considerable education in his specialty. [16] The guidelines specify that poverty, alcohol abuse, or nonconforming social behavior is not evidence that the child should be removed from his Indian home. Rather, the state must demonstrate that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the poverty or conduct and the potential for serious harm to the child. [17] State courts have generally found that the term qualified expert witness in the context of the ICWA requires that the witness have experience with Indian culture and family organization. While this requisite exceeds typical social worker qualifications, [18] the failure of experts to possess knowledge of Indian social practices is not necessarily fatal to the state's case. [19] Some courts have held that social workers qualify as expert witnesses because they come within the BIA term professional persons having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her specialty. [20] Other courts have found that testimony from a typical social worker can be properly admitted, but that it should be supplemented by an expert witness who has expertise in Indian family affairs. [21] In this case, the district court heard testimony from the child welfare worker assigned to investigate N.L.'s status. She had some knowledge of the ICWA and limited experience with Indian children. Her testimony was relevant but it did not comport with the Act's intent. One of the basic goals of the ICWA is to prevent state courts from making custody determinations involving Indian children without meaningful input about tribal family practices. [22] The ICWA does not stray from the fundamental principle that the child's best interests are paramount. The act recognizes that the best interests concept must incorporate, for a legally effective custody decision, consideration of the child's Indian background. [23] I would hence reverse the deprived-status adjudication because no expert testimony was available as required by the ICWA. On remand, the district court should direct the State to produce testimony from persons with expertise in Indian family matters.