Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings
There was published in the Federal Register, vol. 44, No. 70/Monday, April 23, 1979 a notice entitled Recommended Guidelines for State Courts-Indian Child Custody Proceedings. This notice pertained directly to implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-608, 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. A subsequent Federal Register notice which invited public comment concerning the above was published on June 5, 1979. As a result of comments received, the recommended guidelines were revised and are provided below in final form.
Although the rulemaking procedures of the Administration Procedures Act have been followed in developing these guidelines, they are not published as regulations because they are not intended to have binding legislative effect. Many of these guidelines represent the interpretation of the Interior Department of certain provisions of the Act. Other guidelines provide procedures which, if followed, will help assure that rights guaranteed by the Act are protected when state courts decide Indian child custody matters. To the extent that the Department’s interpretations of the Act are correct, contrary interpretations by the courts would be violations of the Act. If procedures different from those recommended in these guidelines are adopted by a state, their adequacy to protect rights guaranteed by the Act will have to be judged on their own merits.
Where congress expressly delegates to the Secretary the primary responsibility for interpreting a statutory term, regulations interpreting that term have legislative effect. Courts are not free to set aside those regulations simply because they would have interpreted that statute in a different manner. Where, however, primary responsibility for interpreting a statutory term rests with the courts, administrative interpretations of statutory terms are given important but not controlling significance. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 424-425 (1977)
In other words, when the Department writes rules needed to carry out responsibilities congress has explicitly imposed on the Department, those rules are binding. A violation of those rules is a violation of the law. When, however, the Department writes rules or guidelines advising some other agency how it should carry out responsibilities explicitly assigned to it by congress, those rules or guidelines are not, by themselves, binding. Courts will take what this Department has to say into account in such instances, but they are free to act contrary to what the Department has said if they are convinced that the Department’s guidelines are not required by the statute itself.
Portions of the Indian Child Welfare Act do expressly delegate to the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for interpreting statutory language. For example, under 25 U.S.C. 1918, the Secretary is directed to determine whether a plan for reassumption of jurisdiction is "feasible" as that term is used in the statute. This and other areas where primary responsibility for implementing portions of the Act rest with this Department, are covered in regulations promulgated on July 31, 1979, at 44 FR 45092.
Primary responsibility for interpreting other language used in the Act, however, rests with the courts that decide Indian child custody cases. For example, the legislative history of the Act states explicitly that the use of the term "good cause" was designed to provide state courts with flexibility in determining the disposition of a placement proceeding involving an Indian child. S. rep. No. 95-597, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (1977). The Department’s interpretation of statutory language of this type is published in these guidelines.
Some commenters asserted that congressional delegation to this Department of authority to promulgate regulations with binding legislative effect with respect to all provisions of the Act is found at 25 U.S.C. 1952, which states, "Within one hundred and eighty days after November 8, 1978, the Secretary shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter." Promulgation of regulations with legislative effect with respect to most of the responsibilities of state or tribal courts under the Act, however, is not necessary to carry out the Act. State and tribal courts are fully capable of carrying out the responsibilities imposed on them by Congress without being under the direct supervision of this Department.
Nothing in the legislative history indicates that Congress intended this department to exercise supervisory control over state or tribal courts or to legislate for them with respect to Indian child custody matters. For congress to assign to an administrative agency such supervisory control over courts would be an extraordinary step.
Nothing in the language or legislative history of 25 U.S.C. 1952 compels the conclusion that Congress intended to vest this Department with such extraordinary power. Both the language and the legislative history indicate that the purpose of that section was simply to assure that the Department moved promptly to promulgate regulations to carry out the responsibilities Congress had assigned it under the Act.
Assignment of supervisory authority over the courts to an administrative agency is a measure so at odds with concepts of both federalism and separation of powers that it should not be imputed to Congress in the absence of an express declaration of congressional intent to that effect.
Some commenters also recommended that the guidelines be published as regulations and that the decision of whether the law permits such regulations to be binding be left to the court. That approach has not been adopted because the Department has an obligation not to assert authority that it concludes it does not have.
Each section of the revised guidelines is accompanied by commentary explaining why the Department believes states should adopt that section and to provide some guidance where the guidelines themselves may need to be interpreted in the light of specific circumstances.
The original guidelines used the word "should" instead of "shall" in most provisions. The term "should" was used to communicate the fact that the guidelines were the Department’s interpretations of the Act and were not intended to have binding legislative effect. Many commenters, however, interpreted the use of "should" as an attempt by this Department to make statutory requirements themselves optional. That was not the intent. If a state adopts those guidelines, they should be stated in mandatory terms. For that reason the word "shall" has replaced "should" in the revised guidelines. The status of these guidelines as interpretative rather than legislative in nature is adequately set out in the introduction.
In some instances a state may wish to establish rules that provide even greater protection for rights guaranteed by the Act than those suggested by these guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to discourage such action. Care should be taken, however, that the provision of additional protections to some parties to a child custody proceeding does not deprive other parties of rights guaranteed to them by the Act.
In some instances the guidelines do little more than restate the statutory language. This is done in order to make the guidelines more complete so that they can be followed without the need to refer to the statute in every instance. Omission of any statutory language, of course, does not in any way affect the applicability of the statute.
A number of commenters recommended that special definitions of residence and domicile be included in the guidelines. Such definitions were not included because these terms are well defined under existing state law. There is no indication that these state law definitions tend to undermine in any way the purposes of the Act. Recommending special definitions for the purpose of this Act alone would simply provide unnecessary complication in the law.
A number of commenters recommended that the guidelines include recommendations for tribal-state agreements under 25 U.S.C. 1919. A number of other commenters, however, criticized the one provision in the original guidelines addressing that subject as tending to impose on such agreements restrictions that congress did not intend should be imposed. Because of the wide variation in the situations and attitudes of states and tribes, it is difficult to deal with that issue in the context of guidelines. The Department is currently developing materials to aid states and tribe with such agreements. The Department hopes to have those materials available later to have those materials available later this year. For these reasons, the provision in the original guidelines concerning tribal-state agreements has been deleted from the guidelines.
The Department has also received many requests for assistance from tribal courts in carrying out the new responsibilities resulting from the passage of this Act. The Department intends to provide additional guidance and assistance in the area also in the future. Providing guidance to state courts was given a higher priority because the Act imposes many more procedures on state courts than it does on tribal courts.
Many commenters have urged the Department to discuss the effect of the Act on the financial responsibilities of states and tribes to provide services to Indian children. Many such services are funded in large part by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The policies and regulations of that Department will have a significant impact on the issue of financial responsibility. Officials of Interior and HEW will be discussing this issue with each other. It is anticipated that more detailed guidance on questions of financial responsibility will be provided as a result of those consultations.
One commenter recommended that the Department establish a monitoring procedure of exercise its right under 25 U.S.C. 1915(e) to review state court placement records. HEW currently reviews state placement records on a systematic basis as part of its responsibilities with respect to statutes it administers. Interior Department officials are discussing with HEW officials the establishment of a procedure for collecting data to review compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Inquiries concerning these recommended guidelines may be directed to the nearest of the following regional and field offices of the Solicitor for the Interior Department:
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the interior, 510 L. Street, Suite 408, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 265-5302.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Richard B. Russell Federal Building, 75 Spring St., SW, Suite 1328, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 221-4447.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, c/o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Suite 306, 1 Gateway Center, Newton corner, Massachusetts 02156, (617) 829-0258.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, 685 Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111, (612) 725-3540.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 25007, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225, (303) 234-3175.
Office of the Field Solicitor, department of the Interior, P.O. box 549, Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401, (605) 225-7254
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225, (303) 234-3175.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 549, Aberdeen, south Dakota 57401 (605) 225-7254.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 1538, Billings, Montana 59103, (406) 245-6711.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Room E-2753, 2800 cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 484-4331.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Valley Bank Center, Suite 280, 201 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85073. (602) 261-4758.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, 3610 Central Avenue, Suite 104, Riverside, California 92506, (714) 787-1580.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Window Rock, Arizona 86615 (602) 871-5151.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Room 3068, Page Belcher Federal Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 581-7501.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Room 7102, Federal building & courthouse, 500 Gold Avenue, S.W. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101, (505) 766-2547.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 397, W.C.D. Office Building, Route 2 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005, (405) 427-0673.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 1505, Room 318,Federal Building, 5th and Broadway, Muskogee, Oklahoma 74401, (918) 683-3111.
Office of the Field Solicitor, Department of the Interior, c/o Osage Agency, Grandview Avenue, Pawhuska, Oklahoma 74056 (918) 287-3431.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of Interior, Suite 6201, Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138, (801)524-5877.
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Lloyd 500 Building, Suite 807, 500 N.E. Multnomah Street, Portland, Oregon 97232, (503) 231-2125.
Guidelines for State Courts
B.1. Determination That Child Is an Indian
(a). When a state court has reason to believe a child involved in a child custody proceeding is an Indian, the court shall seek verification of the child’s status from either the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the child’s tribe. In a voluntary placement proceeding where a consenting parent evidences a desire for anonymity, the court shall make its inquiry in a manner that will not cause the parent’s identity to become publicly known.
(b) (i) The determination by a tribe that a child is or is not a member of that tribe, is or is not eligible for membership in that tribe, or that the biological parent is or is not a member of that tribe is conclusive.
This guideline makes clear that the best source of information on whether a particular child is Indian is the tribe itself. It is the tribe’s prerogative to determine membership criteria. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 133 (1942). Because of the Bureau of Indian Affair’s long experience in determining who is an Indian for a variety of purposes, its determinations are also entitled to great deference. See, e.g., United States v Sandoval, 231, U.S.28, 27 (1913).
Although tribal verification is preferred, a court may want to seek verification from the BIA in those voluntary placement cases where the parent has requested anonymity and the tribe does not have a system for keeping child custody matters confidential.
Under the Act confidentially is given a much higher priority in voluntary proceedings than in involuntary ones. The Act mandates a tribal right of notice and intervention in involuntary proceedings but not in voluntary ones. Cf. 25 U.S.C. For voluntary placements, however, the Act specifically directs state courts to respect parental requests for confidentiality. 25 U.S.C. The most common voluntary placement involves a newborn infant.
Confidentiality has traditionally been a high priority in such placements. The Act reflects that traditional approach by requiring deference to requests for anonymity in voluntary placements but not in involuntary ones. This guideline specifically provides that anonymity not be compromised in seeking verification of Indian status. If anonymity were compromised at that point, the statutory requirement that requests for anonymity be respected in applying the preferences would be meaningless.
Enrollment is not always required in order to be a member of a tribe. Some tribes do not have written rolls. Others have rolls that list only persons that were members as of a certain date. Enrollment is the common evidentiary means of establishing Indian status, but it is not the only means nor is it necessarily determinative. United States v. Brocheau, 597 F. 2nd 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 1979)
The guidelines also list several circumstances which shall trigger an inquiry by the court and petitioners to determine whether a child is an Indian for purposes of this Act. This listing is not intended to be complete, but it does list the most common circumstances giving rise to a reasonable belief that a child may be an Indian.
B.2. Determination of Indian Child’s Tribe
This guideline requires the court to notify all tribes that are potentially the Indian child’s tribe so that each tribe may assert its claim to that status and the court may have the benefit of the views of each tribe. Notification of all the tribes is also necessary so the court can consider the comparative interest of each tribe in the child’s welfare in making its decision. That factor has long been regarded an important consideration in making child custody decisions.
The significant factors listed in this section are based on recommendations by tribal officials involved in child welfare matters. The Act itself and the legislative history make it clear that tribal rights are to be based on the existence of a political relationship between the family and the tribe. For that reason, the guidelines make actual tribal membership of the child conclusive on this issue.
The guidelines do provide, however, that previous decisions of a court made on its own determination of the Indian child’s tribe are not invalidated simply because the child becomes a member of a different tribe. This provision is included because of the importance of stability and continuity to a child who has been placed outside the home by a court. If a child becomes a member before a placement is made or before a change of placement becomes necessary for other reasons, however, then that membership decision can be taken into account without harm to the child’s need for stable relationships.
We have received several recommendations that the "Indian child’s tribe" status be accorded to all tribes in which a child is eligible for membership. The fact that Congress, in the definition of "Indian child’s tribe," provided a criterion for determining which is the the Indian child’s tribe, is a clear indication of legislative intent that there be only one such tribe for each child. For purposes of transfer of jurisdiction, there obviously can be only one tribe to adjudicate the case. To give more than one tribe "Indian child’s tribe" status for purposes of the placement preferences would dilute the preference accorded by Congress to the tribe with which the child has the more significant contacts.
A right of intervention could be accorded a tribe with which a child has less significant contacts without undermining the right of the other tribe. A state court can, if it wishes and state law permits, permit intervention by more than one tribe. It could also give a second tribe preference in placement after attempts to place a child with a member of the first tribe or in a home or institution designated by the first tribe had proved unsuccessful. So long as the special rights of the Indian child’s tribe are respected, giving special status to the tribe with the less significant contacts is not prohibited by the Act and may, in many instances, be a good way to comply with the spirit of the Act.
Determination of the Indian child’s tribe for purposes of this Act shall not serve as any precedent for other situations. The standards in this statute and these guidelines are designed with child custody matters in mind. A difference determination may be entirely appropriate in other legal contexts.
B.3. Determination That Placement Is Covered by the Act
The purpose of this section is to deal with some of the questions the Department has been receiving concerning the coverage of the Act.
The entire legislative history makes it clear that the Act is directed primarily at attempts to place someone other than the parent or Indian custodian in charge of raising an Indian child-whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Although there is some overlap, juvenile delinquency proceedings are primarily designed for other purposes. Where the child is taken out of the home for committing a crime it is usually to protect society from further offenses by the child and to punish the child in order to persuade that child and others not to commit other offenses.
Placements based on status offenses (actions that are not a crime when committed by an adult), however, are usually premised on the conclusion that the present custodian of the child is not providing adequate care or supervision. To the extent that a status offense poses any immediate danger to society, it is usually also punishable as an offense which would be a crime if committed by an adult. For that reason status offenses are treated the same as dependency proceedings and are covered by the Act and these guidelines, while other juvenile delinquency placements are excluded.
While the Act excludes placements based on an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult, it does cover terminations of parental rights even where they are based on an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult. Such terminations are not intended as punishment and do not prevent the child from committing further offenses. They are based on the conclusion that someone other than the present custodian of the child should be raising the child. Congress has concluded that courts shall make such judgments only on the basis of evidence that serious physical or emotional harm to the child is likely to result unless the child is removed.
The Act excludes from coverage an award of custody to one of the parents "in a divorce proceeding." If construed narrowly, this provision would leave custody awards resulting from proceedings between husband and wife for separate maintenance, but not for dissolution of the marriage bond within the coverage of the Act. Such a narrow interpretation would not be in accord with the intent of Congress. The legislative history indicates that the exemption for divorce proceedings, in part, was included in response to the views of this Department that the protections provided by this Act are not needed in proceedings between parents. In terms of the purposes of this Act, there is no reason to treat separate maintenance or similar domestic relations proceedings differently from divorce proceedings. For that reason the statutory term "divorce proceeding" is construed to include other domestic relations proceedings between spouses.
The Act also excludes from its coverage any placements that do not deprive the parents or Indian custodians of the right to regain custody of the child upon demand. Without this exception a court appearance would be required every time an Indian child left home to go to school. Court appearances would also be required for many informal caretaking arrangements that Indian parents and custodians sometimes make for their children. This statutory exemption is restated here in the hope that it will reduce the instances in which Indian parents are unnecessarily inconvenienced by being required to give consent in court to such informal arrangements.
Some private groups and some states enter into formal written agreements with parents for temporary custody (See e.g. Alaska Statutes § 47.10.230). The guidelines recommend that the parties to such agreements explicitly provide for return of the child upon demand if they do not wish the Act to apply to such placements. Inclusion of such a provision is advisable because courts frequently assume that when an agreement is reduced to writing, the parties have only those rights specifically written into the agreement.
B.4. Determination of Jurisdiction
The purpose of this section is to remind the state court of the need to determine whether it has jurisdiction under the Act. The action is dismissed as soon as it is determined that the court lacks jurisdiction except in emergency situations. The procedures for emergency situations are set out in Section B.7.
B.5. Notice Requirements
This section recommends that state courts routinely inquire of participants in child custody proceedings whether the child is an Indian. If anyone asserts that the child is an Indian or that there is reason to believe the child may be an Indian, then the court shall contact the tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs for verification. Refer to section B.1. and B.2. of these guidelines.
This section specifies the information to be contained in the notice. This information is necessary so the persons who receive notice will be able to exercise their rights in a timely manner. Subparagraph (xi) provides that tribes shall be requested to assist in maintaining the confidentiality of the proceeding. Confidentiality may be difficult to maintain-especially in involuntary proceedings. It is reasonable, however, to ask tribal officials to maintain as much confidentiality as possible consistent with the exercise of tribal rights under the Act.
The time limits are minimum ones required by the Act. In many instances, more time may be available under state court procedures or because of the circumstances of the particular case.
In such instances, the notice shall state that additional time is available.
The Act requires notice to the parent or Indian custodian. At a minimum, parents must be notified if termination of parental rights is a potential outcome since it is their relationship to the child that is at stake. Similarly, the Indian custodians must be notified of any action that could lead to the custodians’ losing custody of the child. Even where only custody is an issue, noncustodial parents clearly have a legitimate interest in the matter. Although notice to both parents and Indian custodians may not be required in all instances by the Act or the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.s. Constitution, providing notice to both is in keeping with the spirit of the Act. For that reason, these guidelines recommend notice be sent to both.
Subsection (d) requires filing the notice with the court so there will be a complete record of efforts to comply with the Act.
Subsection (e) authorizes personal services since it is superior to mail services and provides greater protection or rights as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 1921. Since serving the notices does not involve any assertion of jurisdiction over the person served, personal notices may be served without regard to state or reservation boundaries.
Subsections (f) and (g) provide procedures to increase the likelihood that rights are understood by parents and Indian custodians.
B.6. Time Limits and Extensions
(i) ten days after the parent or Indian custodian (or Secretary where the parent or Indian custodian is unknown to the petitioner) has received notice;
(ii) ten days after the parent or Indian child’s tribe (or the Secretary if the Indian child’s tribe is unknown to the petitioner) has received notice;
This section attempts to clarify the waiting periods required by the Act after notice has been received of an involuntary Indian child custody proceeding. Two independent rights are involved-the right of the parents or Indian custodians and the right of the Indian child’s tribe. The proceeding may not begin until the waiting periods to which both are entitled have passed.
This section also makes clear that additional extensions of time may be granted beyond the minimum required by the Act.
B.7. Emergency Removal of an Indian Child
(i) The name, age and last known address of the Indian child.
Since jurisdiction under the Act is based on domicile and residence rather than simple physical presence, there may be instances in which action must be taken with respect to a child who is physically located off a reservation but is subject to exclusive tribal jurisdiction. In such instances the tribe will usually not be able to take swift action to exercise its jurisdiction. For that reason Congress authorized states to take temporary emergency action.
Since emergency action must be taken without the careful advance deliberation normally required, procedures must be established to assure that the emergency actions are quickly subjected to review. This section provides procedures for prompt review of such emergency actions. It presumes the state already has such review procedures and only prescribes additional procedures that shall be followed in cases involving Indian children.
The legislative history clearly states that placements under such emergency procedures are to be as short as possible. If the emergency ends, the placement shall end. State action shall also end as soon as the tribe is ready to take over the case.
Subsection (d) refers primarily to the period between when the petition is filed and when the trial court renders its decision. The Act requires that, except for emergencies, Indian children are not to be removed from their parents unless a court finds clear and convincing evidence that the child would be in serious danger unless removed from the home. Unless there is some kind of time limit on the length of an "emergency removal" (that is, any removal not made pursuant to a finding by the court that there is clear and convincing evidence that continued parental custody would make serious physical or emotional harm likely), the safeguards of the Act could be evaded by use of long-term emergency removals.
Subsection (d) recommends what is, in effect, a speedy trail requirement. The court shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Act and reach a decision within 90 days unless there are "extraordinary circumstances" that make additional delay unavoidable.
B.8. Improper Removal From Custody
This section is designed to implement 25 U.S.C. § 1920. Since a finding of improper removal goes to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case at all, this section provides that the court will decide the issue as soon as it arises before proceeding further on his merits.
C.1. Petitions under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) for transfer of proceeding
Either parent, the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe may, orally or in writing, request the court to transfer the Indian child custody proceeding to the tribal court of the child’s tribe. The request shall be made promptly after receiving notice of the proceeding. If the request is made orally it shall be reduced to writing by the court and made a part of the record.
Reference is made to 25 U.S.C. 1911(b) in this title of this section deals only with transfers where the child is not domiciled or residing on an Indian reservation.
So that transfers can occur as quickly and simply as possible, requests can be made orally.
This section specifies that requests are to be made promptly after receiving notice of the proceeding. This is a modification of the timeliness requirement that appears in the earlier version of the guidelines. Although the statute permits proceedings to be commenced even before actual notice, those parties do not lose their right to request a transfer simply because neither the petitioner nor the Secretary was able to locate them earlier.
Permitting late transfer requests by persons and tribes who were notified late may cause some disruption. It will also, however, provide an incentive to the petitioners to make a diligent effort to give notice promptly in order to avoid such disruptions.
The Department received a number of comments objecting to any timeliness requirement at all. Commenters pointed out that the statue does not explicitly require transfer requests to be timely. Some commenters argued that imposing such a requirement violated tribal and parental rights to intervene at any point in the proceedings under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c) of the Act.
While the Act permits intervention at any point in the proceeding, it does not explicitly authorize transfer requests at any time. Late interventions do not have nearly the disruptive effect on the proceeding that last minute transfers do. A case that is almost completed does not need to be retried when intervention is permitted. The problems resulting from late intervention are primarily those of the intervenor, who has lost the opportunity to influence the portion of the proceedings that was completed prior to intervention.
Although the Act does not explicitly require transfer petitions to be timely, it does authorize the court to refuse to transfer a case for good cause. When a party who could have petitioned earlier waits until the case is almost complete to ask that it be transferred to another court and retried, good cause exists to deny the request.
Timeliness is a proven weapon of the courts against disruption caused by negligence or obstructionist tactics on the part of counsel. If a transfer petition must be honored at any point before judgment, a party could wait to see how the trail is going in state court and then obtain another trial if it appears the other side will win. Delaying a transfer request could be used as a tactic to wear down the other side by requiring the case to be tried twice. The Act was not intended to authorize such tactics and the "good cause" provision is ample authority for the court to prevent them.
C.2. Criteria and Procedures for Ruling on 25 U.S. C. § 1911(b) Transfer Petitions
Subsection (a) simply states the rule provided in 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b).
Since the Act gives the parents and the tribal court of the Indian child’s tribe an absolute veto over transfers, there is no need for any adversary proceedings if the parents or the tribal court opposes transfer. Where it is proposed to deny transfer on the grounds of "good cause," however, all parties need an opportunity to present their views to the court.
C.3. Determination of Good Cause to the Contrary
(i) The proceeding was at an advanced stage when the petition to transfer was received and the petitioner did not file the petition promptly after receiving notice of the hearing.
All five criteria that were listed in the earlier version of the guidelines were highly controversial. Comments on the first two criteria were almost unanimously negative. The first criterion was whether the parents were still living. The second was whether an Indian custodian or guardian for the child had been appointed. These criteria were criticized as irrelevant and arbitrary. It was argued that children who are orphans or have no appointed Indian custodian or guardian are no more nor less in need of the Act’s protections that other children. It was also pointed out that these criteria are contrary to the decision in Wisconsin Potwatomies of the Hannahville Indian Community v. Houston, 397 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. Misch 1973), which was explicitly endorsed by the committee that drafted that Act. The court in that case found that tribal jurisdiction existed even through the children involved were orphans for whom no guardian had been appointed.
Although there was some support for the third and fourth criteria, the preponderance of the comment concerning them was critical. The third criteria was whether the child had little or no contact with his or her Indian tribe for a significant period of time. These criteria were criticized, in part, because they would virtually exclude from transfers infants who were born off the reservation. Many argued that the tribe has a legitimate interest in the welfare of members who have not had significant previous contact with the tribe or the reservation. Some also argued that these criteria invited the state courts to be making the kind of cultural decisions that the Act contemplated should be made by tribes. Some argued that the use of vague words in these criteria accorded state courts too much discretion.
The fifth criteria was whether a child over the age of twelve objected to the transfer. Comment on this criteria was much more evenly divided and many of the critics were ambivalent. They worried that young teenagers could be too easily influenced by the judge or by social workers. They also argued that fear of the unknown would cause many teenagers to make an ill-considered decision against transfer.
The first four criteria in the earlier version were all directed toward the question of whether the child’s connections with the reservation were so tenuous that transfer back to the tribe is not advised. The circumstances under which it may be proper for the state court to take such considerations into account are set out in the revised subsection (iv).
It is recommended that in most cases state court judges not be called upon to determine whether or not a child'’ contacts with a reservation are so limited that a case should not be transferred. This may be a valid consideration since the shock of changing cultures may, in some cases, be harmful to the child. This determination, however, can be made by the parent, who has a veto-over transfer to tribal court.
This reasoning does not apply, however, where there is no parent available to make that decision. The guidelines recommend that state courts be authorized to make such determinations only in those cases where there is no parent available to make it.
State court authority to make such decisions is limited to those cases where the child is over five years of age. Most children younger than five years can be expected to adjust more readily to a change in cultural environment.
The fifth criterion has been retained. It is true that teenagers may make some unwise decisions, but it is also true that their judgment has developed to the extent that their views ought to be taken into account in making decisions about their lives.
The existence of a tribal court is made an absolute requirement for transfer of a case. Clearly, the absence of a tribal court is good cause not to ask the tribe to try the case.
Consideration of whether or not the case can be properly tried in tribal court without hardship to the parties or witnesses was included on the strength of the section-by-section analysis in the House Report on the Act, which stated with respect to the § 1911(b), "The subsection is intended to permit a State court to apply a modified doctrine of forum non conveniens, in appropriate cases, to insure that the rights of the child as an Indian, the Indian parents or custodian, and the tribe are fully protected." Where a child is in fact living in a dangerous situation, he or she should not be forced to remain there simply because the witnesses cannot afford to travel long distances to court.
Application of this criterion will tend to limit transfers to cases involving Indian children who do not live very far from the reservation. This problem may be alleviated in some instances by having the court come to the witnesses. The Department is aware of one case under that Act where transfer was conditioned on having the tribal court meet in the city where the family lived. Some cities have substantial populations of members of tribes from distant reservations. In such situations some tribes may wish to appoint members who live in those cities as tribal judges.
The timeliness of the petition for transfer, discussed at length in the commentary to section C.1., is listed as a factor to be considered. Inclusion of this criterion is designed to encourage the prompt exercise of the right to petition for transfer in order to avoid unnecessary delays. Long periods of uncertainty concerning the future are generally regarded as harmful to the well-being of children. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid unnecessary delays in child custody proceedings.
Almost all commenters favored retention of the paragraph stating that reservation socio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy of tribal institutions are not to be taken into account in making good cause determinations. Come commenters did suggest, however, that a case not be transferred if it is clear that a particular disposition of the case that could only be made by the state court held especially great promise of benefiting the child.
Such considerations are important but they have not been listed because the Department believes such judgments are best made by tribal courts. Parties who believe that state court adjudication would be better for such reasons can present their reasons to the tribal court and urge it to decline jurisdiction. The Department is aware of one case under the Act where this approach is being used and believes it is more in keeping with the confidence Congress has expressed in tribal courts.
Since Congress has established a policy of preferring tribal control over custody decisions affecting tribal members, the burden of proving that an exception to that policy ought to be made in a particular case rests on the party urging that an exception be made. The rule is reflected in subsection (d).
C.4. Tribal Court Declination of Transfer
The previous version of this section provided that the state court should presume the tribal court has declined to accept jurisdiction unless it hears otherwise. The comments on this issue were divided. This section has been revised to require the tribal court to decline the transfer affirmatively if it does not wish to take the case. This approach is in keeping with the apparent intent of Congress. The language in the Act providing that transfers are "subject to declination by the tribal court" indicates that affirmative action by the tribal court is required to decline a transfer.
A new paragraph has been added recommending that the parties assist the tribal court in making its decision on declination by giving the tribal court their views on the matter.
Transfers ought to be arranged as simply as possible consistent with due process. Transfer procedures are a good subject for tribal-state agreements under 25 U.S.C. § 1919.
D.1. Access to Reports
Each party to a foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding under State law involving an Indian child has the right to examine all reports or other documents filed with the court upon which any decision with respect to such action may be based. No decision of the court shall be based on any report or other document not filed with the court.
The first sentence merely restates the statutory language verbatim. The second sentence makes explicit the implicit assumption of Congress - that the court will limit its considerations to those documents and reports that have been filed with the court.
D.2. Efforts To Alleviate Need To Remove Child From Parents or Indian Custodians
Any party petitioning a state court for foster care placement or termination of parental rights to an Indian child must demonstrate to the court that prior to the commencement of the proceeding active efforts have been made to alleviate the need to remove the Indian child from his or her parents or Indian custodians. These efforts shall take into account the prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe. They shall also involve and use the available resources of the extended family, the tribe, Indian social service agencies and individual Indian care givers.
This section elaborates on the meaning of "breakup of the Indian family" as used in the Act. "Family breakup" is sometimes used as a synonym for divorce. In the context of the statue, however, it is clear that Congress meant a situation in which the family is unable or unwilling to raise the child in a manner that is not likely to endanger the child’s emotional or physical health.
This section also recommends that the petitioner take into account the culture of the Indian child’s tribe and use the resources of the child’s extended family and tribe in attempting to help the family function successfully as a home for the child. The term "individual Indian care givers" refers to medicine men and other individual tribal members who may have developed special skills that can be used to help the child’s family succeed.
One commenter recommended that detailed procedures and criteria be established in order to determine whether family support efforts had been adequate. Establishing such procedures and requirements would involve the court in second-guessing the professional judgment of social service agencies. The Act does not contemplate such a role for the courts and they generally lack the expertise to make such judgments.
D.3. Standards of Evidence
The first two paragraphs are essentially restatement of the statutory language. By imposing these standards, Congress has changed the rules of law of many states with respect to the placement of Indian children. A child may not be removed simply because there is someone else willing to raise the child who is likely to do a better job or that it would be "in the best interests of the child" for him or her to live with someone else. Neither can a placement or termination of parental rights be ordered simply based on a determination that the parents or custodians are "unfit parents." It must be shown that it is shown that it is dangerous for the child to remain with his or her present custodians. Evidence of that must be "clear and convincing" for placements and "beyond a reasonable doubt" for terminations.
The legislative history of the Act makes it pervasively clear that Congress attributes many unwarranted removals of Indian children to cultural bias on the part of the courts and social workers making the decisions. In many cases children were removed merely because the family did not conform to the decision-maker’s stereotype of what a proper family should be-without any testing of the implicit assumption that only a family that conformed to that stereotype could successfully raise children. Subsection (c) makes it clear that mere non-conformance with such stereotypes or the existence of other behavior or conditions that are considered bad does not justify a placement or termination under the standards imposed by Congress. The focus must be on whether the particular conditions are likely to cause serious damage.
D.4. Qualified Expert Witnesses
(i) A member of the Indian child’s tribe who is recognized by the tribal community as knowledgeable in tribal customs as they pertain to family organization and childrearing practices.
The first subsection is intended to point out that the issue on which qualified expert testimony is required is the question of whether or not serious damage to the child is likely to occur if the child is not removed. Basically two questions are involved. First, is it likely that the conduct of the parents will result in serious physical or emotional harm to the child? Second, if such conduct will likely cause such harm, can the parents be persuaded to modify their conduct?
The party presenting an expert witness must demonstrate that the witness is qualified by reason of educational background and prior experience to make judgments on those questions that are substantially more reliable than judgments that would be made by non-experts.
The second subsection makes clear that knowledge of tribal culture and childrearing practices will frequently be very valuable to the court. Determining the likelihood of future harm frequently involves predicting future behavior – which is influenced to a large degree by culture. Specific behavior patterns will often need to be placed in the context of the total culture to determine whether they are likely to cause serious emotional harm.
Indian tribes and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel frequently know persons who are knowledgeable concerning the customs and cultures of the tribes they serve. Their assistance is available in helping to locate such witnesses.
E.1. Execution of Consent
To be valid, consent to a voluntary termination of parental rights or adoption must be executed in writing and recorded before a judge or magistrate of a court of competent jurisdiction. A certificate of the court must accompany any consent and must certify that the terms and consequences of the consent were explained in detail and in the language of the parent or Indian custodian, if English is not the primary language, and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian. Execution of consent need not be in open court where confidentiality is requested or indicated.
This section provides that consent may be executed before either a judge or magistrate. The addition of magistrates was made in response to a suggestion from Alaska where magistrates are found in most small communities but "judges" are more widely scattered. The term "judge" as used in the statute is not a term of art and can certainly be construed to include judicial officers who are called magistrates in some states. The statement that consent need not be in open court where confidentiality is desired or indicated was taken directly from the House Report on the Act. A recommendation that the guideline list the consequences of consent that must be described to the parent or custodian has not been adopted because the consequences can vary widely depending on the nature of the proceeding, state law and the particular facts of individual cases.
E.2. Content of Consent Document
This section specifies the basic information about the placement or termination to which the parent or Indian custodian is consenting to assure that consent is knowing and also to document what took place.
E.3. Withdrawal of Consent to Placement
Where a parent or Indian custodian has consented to a foster care placement under state law, such consent may be withdrawn at any time by filing, in the court where consent was executed and filed, an instrument executed by the parent or Indian custodian. When a parent or Indian custodian withdraws consent to foster care placement, the child shall as soon as is practicable be returned to that parent or Indian custodian.
This section specifies that withdrawal of consent shall be filed in the same court where the consent document itself was executed.
E.4. Withdrawal of Consent to Adoption
A consent to termination of parental rights or adoption may be withdrawn by the parent at any time prior to entry of a final decree of voluntary termination or adoption by filing in the court where the consent is filed an instrument executed under oath by the parent stipulating his or her intention to withdraw such consent. The clerk of the court where the withdrawal of consent is filed shall promptly notify the party by or through whom any preadoptive or adoptive placement has been arranged of such filing and that party shall insure the return of the child to the parent as soon as practicable.
This provision recommends that the clerk of the court be responsible for notifying the family with whom the child has been placed that consent has been withdrawn. The court’s involvement frequently may be necessary since the biological parents are often not told who the adoptive parents are.
F.1. Adoptive Placements
This section makes clear that preference shall be given in the order listed in the Act. The Act clearly recognizes the role of the child’s extended family in helping to raise children. The extended family should be looked to first when it becomes necessary to remove the child from the custody of his or her parents. Because of differences in culture among tribes, placement within the same tribe is preferable.
This section also provides that single parent families shall be considered for placements. The legislative history of the Act makes it clear that Congress intended custody decisions to be made based on a consideration of the present or potential custodian’s ability to provide the necessary care, supervision and support for the child rather than on preconceived notions of proper family composition.
The third subsection recommends that the court or agenda make an active effort to find out if there are families entitled to preference who would be willing to adopt the child. This provision recognizes, however, that the consenting parent’s request for anonymity takes precedence over efforts to find a home consistent with the Act’s priorities.
F.2. Foster Care or Preadoptive Placements
In any foster care or preadoptive placement of an Indian child:
(iii) which is in reasonable proximity to his or her home
This guideline simply restates the provision of the Act.
F.3. Good Cause To Modify Preferences
(ii) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child as established by
testimony of a qualified expert witness.
(iii) The unavailability of suitable families for placement after a diligent search
has been completed for families meeting the preference criteria.
The Act indicates that the court is to give preference to confidentiality requests by parents in making placements. Paragraph (I) is intended to permit parents to ask that the order of preference not be followed because it would prejudice confidentiality or for other reasons. The wishes of an older child are important in making an effective placement.
In a few cases a child may need highly specialized treatment services that are unavailable in the community where the families who meet the preference criteria live. Paragraph (ii) recommends that such considerations be considered as good cause to the contrary.
Paragraph (iii) recommends that a diligent attempt to find a suitable family meeting the preference criteria be made before consideration of a non-preference placement be considered. A diligent attempt to find a suitable family includes at a minimum, contact with the child’s tribal social service program, a search of all county or state listings of available Indian homes and contact with nationally known Indian programs with available placement resources.
Since Congress has established a clear preference for placements within the tribal culture, it is recommended in subsection (b) that the party urging an exception be made be required to bear the burden of proving an exception is necessary.
G.1. Petition To Vacate Adoption
This section recommends that the petition to vacate an adoption be brought in the same court in which the decree was entered, since that court clearly has jurisdiction, and witnesses on the issue of fraud or duress are most likely to be within its jurisdiction.
G.2. Adult Adoptee Rights
Subsection (b) makes clear that adoptions completed prior to May 7, 1979, are covered by this provision. The Act states that most portions of Title I do not "affect a proceeding under State law" initiated or completed prior to May 7, 1979. Providing information to an adult adoptee, however, cannot be said to affect the proceeding by which the adoption was ordered.
The legislative history of the Act makes it clear that this Act was not intended to supersede the decision of state legislatures on whether adult adoptees may be told the names of their biological parents. The intent is simply to assure the protection of rights deriving from tribal membership. Where a state law prohibits disclosure of the identity of the biological parents, tribal rights can be protected by asking the BIA to check confidentiality whether the adult adoptee meets the requirements for membership in an Indian tribe. If the adoptee does meet those requirements, the BIA can certify that fact to the appropriate tribe.
G.3. Notice of Change in Child’s Status
This section provides guidelines to aid courts in applying the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. Section 106 gives legal standing to a biological parent or prior Indian custodian to petition for return of a child in cases of failed adoptions or changes in placement in situations where there has been a termination of parental rights. Section 106(b) provides the whenever an Indian child is removed from a foster care home or institution for the purpose of further foster care, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement, such placement is to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act – which requires notice to the biological parents.
The Act is silent on the question of whether a parent or Indian custodian can waive the right to further notice. Obviously, there will be cases in which the biological parents will prefer not to receive notice once their parental rights have been relinquished or terminated. This section provides for such waivers but, because the Act establishes an absolute right to participate in any future proceedings and to petition the court for return of the child, the waiver is revocable.
G.4. Maintenance of Records
The state shall establish a single location where all records of every foster care, preadoptive placement and adoptive placement of Indian children by courts of that state will be available within seven days of a request by an Indian child’s tribe or the Secretary. The records shall contain, at a minimum, the petition or complaint, all substantive orders entered in the proceeding, and the complete record of the placement determination.
This section of the guidelines provides a procedure for implementing the provisions of 25 U.S. C. § 1915(e). This section has been modified from the previous version which required that all records be maintained in a single location within the state. As revised this section provides only that the records be retrievable by a single office that would make them available to the requester within seven days of a request. For some states (especially Alaska) centralization of the records themselves would create major administrative burdens. So long as the records can be promptly made available at a single location, the intent of this section that the records be readily available will be satisfied.
Forrest J. Gerrard,
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs
November 16, 1979.