Opinion ID: 2584054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constance and Clark's stronger contacts with the child's biological relatives

Text: Constance and Clark argue that the special master gave insufficient consideration to their ability to provide Bernard with access to his other biological relatives. They argue that in living with them, Bernard would reside with his brother, and that he would have access to relatives on both his mother's and father's sides. Ruth and John point out in reply that in their household Bernard has already lived with S.G., his half-sister, for two years. They argue that they too arrange for Bernard to spend time with his relatives, and that these are simply different relatives from the ones Constance and Clark know. The record supports the contention that Constance and Clark can provide Bernard with access to more of his extended family, especially relatives from his deceased father's side. Nonetheless, Ruth and John can provide adequate exposure to the extended family, and we agree with the superior court that Bernard's daily care is even more important than his contacts with his extended family. Constance and Clark also submit that because the extended family placement preference of the ICWA [25] is meant to reverse a pattern of breaking up Indian families and to promote the stability of Indian families, [26] this factor should be given no inconsiderable weight. Ruth and John argue that they themselves are part of Bernard's extended family and that placement with them does not break up an Indian family any more than has already occurred. In the previous case between these parties, we held that Ruth provides a sufficiently close family relationship to meet the purpose of the ICWA extended family placement preference, [27] and that Constance and Clark had not shown that they have any greater claim under Yup'ik tradition to the ICWA extended family placement preference by virtue of being more closely related by blood. [28] They produced no new evidence on Yup'ik tradition in the current trial. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on this point.