Opinion ID: 2341803
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: David's desire to place Hannah with Claire

Text: David makes a series of arguments related to his desire to have Hannah placed with his mother, Claire. David argues that an attorney in a CINA case acts as both an advocate for and a counselor to a client and that his attorney failed in this latter role. David contends that his attorney should not have advised him to stipulate that Hannah was a child in need of aid in April 2008 when she was taken into custody by the State. David also argues that his counsel failed to advocate for the placement of Hannah with her paternal grandmother, Claire. David relies on his expert witness's statement that [the] attorney's failure to advocate for placement adequately with Claire [ ] fell below the standards of representation. The State responds that OCS actively pursued placement with Claire and that it is therefore inconsequential whether David's attorney should have done more to ensure that Hannah was placed with Claire. The State concentrates its arguments on the prejudice prong of the Risher test. Even if trial counsel did fail to pursue placement with Claire, that is not relevant to a claim that he provided ineffective assistance in David's termination proceedings. Further, OCS undertook considerable efforts to place Hannah with Claire. David does not specify what else his attorney might have argued that OCS should have done. The opportunity to place Hannah with Claire seems to have been robustly explored, and it is unclear what additional advocacy for this option would have accomplished. Accordingly, David's argument does not satisfy the prejudice prong of the Risher test. Finally, David argues that his attorney failed to recognize that Claire [ ] may have standing as an Indian Custodian. David claims that Diane's delegation of parental rights to Claire via a power of attorney was consistent with tribal practice and custom and is exactly the type of issue that ICWA is designed to protect. But as discussed above, this argument also fails the prejudice prong of the Risher test because Claire does not, in fact, have standing as an Indian custodian. Because Claire was not an Indian custodian, it could not have benefitted David to argue that she was.