Opinion ID: 2617717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act

Text: Congress adopted the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, in response to concerns over the consequences to Indian children, Indian families and Indian tribes of abusive state child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes. [4] In order to address these concerns, ICWA establishes 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. [5] Section 1913 of ICWA provides that any voluntary termination of parental rights by any parent or Indian custodian must be executed in writing and recorded before a judge ... of competent jurisdiction. LJJ argues that § 1913 applies to TNF's adoption since she falls under ICWA's definition of a parent and TNF falls under the Act's definition of an Indian child. Section 1903(9) of ICWA states that `parent' 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. We agree that as the biological parent of TNF, LJJ falls within the Act's protections in § 1913(a). Secondly, LJJ argues that TNF falls within the Act's definition of an Indian child. The Act defines an Indian child as any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) (Supp. 1987). TNF's biological father, BFF, is a member of the Chickasaw Nation. As the biological child of BFF, TNF is also a member of the Chickasaw tribe. As a result, TNF falls within the definition of an Indian child under ICWA. The F.s argue that the result of applying ICWA to this case would be to disrupt an Indian family, not to protect one. They urge us to follow several state court decisions holding that ICWA does not apply to the adoption of an Indian child which was never part of an Indian family. The F.s also point to language in ICWA indicating that Congress intended the act to protect Indian families. [6] The F.s also rely on the Congressional findings of purpose within ICWA in arguing that the Act should not be applied in this case. In enacting ICWA Congress found: (4) 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 that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions; and (5) that the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families. 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (Supp. 1987). In § 1902 Congress made the following declaration of policy: The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of this Nation 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. 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (Supp. 1987). Several of the cases the F.s rely on [7] involved belated challenges by unwed Indian fathers to the adoption of an illegitimate Indian child. [8] The Supreme Court of Indiana expanded on the holdings of these cases in In the Matter of the Adoption of T.R.M., 525 N.E.2d 298, 302-03 (Ind. 1988). In Adoption of T.R.M., an Indian mother arranged to have her illegitimate child adopted by a non-Indian couple. One year later, the Indian mother and the Tribe brought actions to invalidate the adoption on the grounds that it did not comply with ICWA. The court found ICWA did not apply since the child was given up shortly after birth and thus was never part of an Indian family. The court noted that except for the first five days after birth, [T.R.M.'s] entire life of seven years to date has been spent with her non-Indian adoptive parents in a non-Indian culture. Id. at 303. Adoption of T.R.M. and the other cases recognizing an Indian family exception to the plain language of ICWA have been criticized by a number of courts. [9] In A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914, 103 S.Ct. 1893, 77 L.Ed.2d 283 (1982), we were urged to adopt an Indian family exception to the Act's coverage. There, an Indian child was adopted by the mother's sister and brother-in-law but the biological mother later sought to revoke her consent to the adoption. The prospective adoptive parents argue that because the Act was intended to remedy the agency bias that has resulted in the removal of Indian children from their cultural settings, its application is not required in the instant case. They contend that R.H.'s adoption by members of her extended family (M.H. and A.H.) will not deprive her of the exposure to Indian cultural or social values the Act is designed to safeguard. We agree that the H.'s have correctly identified one of the primary purposes of the Act, and that application in the instant case is not required to preserve R.H.'s ties to Indian culture or social values. Nevertheless, we cannot justify creating a judicial exception to the Act's coverage on this basis alone. 651 P.2d at 1173. Similarly, we decline to create an exception to the Act's coverage in this case. We initially note that in enacting ICWA, Congress did not seek simply to protect the interests of individual Indian parents. Rather, Congress sought to also protect the interests of Indian tribes and communities, and the interests of the Indian children themselves. See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 1609, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). Reliance on a requirement that the Indian child be part of an Indian family for the Act to apply would undercut the interests of Indian tribes and Indian children themselves that Congress sought to protect through the notice, jurisdiction and other procedural protections set out in ICWA. We have serious policy reservations concerning the creation of judicial exceptions to the plain language of ICWA as was done by the Indian Court in Adoption of T.R.M. The court in Adoption of T.R.M. sidestepped the Act's protections by relying on the fact that the mother gave up the child shortly after its birth. Such application of an Indian family requirement effectively deprived both the Indian mother and her Tribe of the protections set out in the Act. It would seem that the adoption in T.R.M. was exactly the type of scenario in which Congress sought to impose federal procedural safeguards in order to protect the rights of the Indian parents and their tribe. Moreover, these judicially-created exceptions to the coverage of ICWA are somewhat suspect in light of the Act's purpose of imposing federal procedural safeguards. State courts must be particularly hesitant in creating judicial exceptions to a federal act which was enacted to counter state courts' prejudicial treatment of Indian children and communities. [10] We certainly agree with the F.s' contention that it is very unlikely that Congress had surrogate parent arrangements in mind when it adopted the Act. However, to utilize a judicially-created Indian family exception would be to enter onto a slippery slope which threatens to exclude the very type of cases Congress had in mind when it adopted the Act. Under the plain language of the statute, LJJ has standing to challenge the adoption under ICWA because she is the biological parent of an Indian child under § 1903(9).