TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In the Interest of C.Y.

In the Interest of C.Y., d/o/b 06/03/92

In the Interest of C.Y., 925 P.2d 447 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kansas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 18, 1996
Docket
No. 74,815
Judges
Elliott, Knudson, Smith
Citations
925 P.2d 44722 Kan. App. 2d 9411996 Kan. App. LEXIS 123

Opinion of the Court — Elliott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Elliott, J.:

The birth parents of C.Y. appeal the termination of their parental rights. We reverse and remand.

The petition alleging C.Y. was a child in need of care stated that C.Y. had been placed in protective custody at mother’s request partly because mother’s mental condition and alcoholism prevented her from properly caring for C.Y. and that mother had previously been convicted of sexually abusing her other children who *942 were now in the custody of the Sioux Nation (of which mother is a member).

The initial termination hearing was continued because notice to the Fort Peck Tribe of the Sioux Nation did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (1994). Mother requested that the case be transferred to the tribal court and father did not object.

A lawyer in private practice in North Dakota entered his appearance on behalf of the tribe and filed a document stating that economic conditions prevented the tribe from appearing at the termination hearing, that the tribe retained its right to intervene, and that the tribe “will object to any Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction in this matter to the Fort Peck Tribal Court.”

The trial court accepted the document as formal declination of jurisdiction and terminated both parents’ rights. Father has adopted mother’s brief as his own.

We have a duty to question jurisdiction on our own motion. In re Marriage of Marks, 13 Kan. App. 2d 1, 2 , 758 P.2d 257 (1988).

All parties agree the ICWA applies to this case. The ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (1994), includes the following relevant provisions:

“(b) Transfer of proceedings; declination by tribal court.

In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe: Provided, that such transfer shall be subject to declination by the tribal court of such tribe.

“(c) State court proceedings; intervention.

In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child, the Indian custodian of the child and the Indian child’s tribe shall have a right to intervene at any point in the proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)

To us, the statute is clear. It is the tribe which has the right to intervene under 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (c), and it is the tribal court which must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case transferred to it under § 1911(b). “Indian tribe” and “tribal court” are separately *943 defined and denote separate entities. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1903 (8) and (12) (1994).

Here, the Fort Peck Tribal Court has never declined jurisdiction. Counsel for the tribe merely stated the tribe would resist the transfer.

Curiously, the trial court did not need a formal declination of jurisdiction from the tribal court if it found that good cause existed not to transfer the case on mother’s request and there was no objection to the transfer from father. The trial court made no such finding and, arguably at least, the trial court may have inferentially found it did not have good cause to retain jurisdiction since it did find it needed a formal declination of jurisdiction before it could proceed with the case.

As a result, we hold the trial court failed to comply with the ICWA in determining whether to transfer the case to the tribal court. In order to comply with the ICWA, the trial court must obtain a declination of jurisdiction from the tribal court or make a finding that good cause exists not to transfer the case to the tribal court. 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b).

We do not feel we are being overly technical in our holding. As we read the ICWA, its clear language requires this result.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court comply with 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2001: 12011: 220012026peak 2011 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re J.W.C.2011 MT 312, 265 P.3d 1265
  2. In re J.W.C. L.W.C. K.W.C. An2011 MT 312
  3. Brown County v. MARCELLA G.2001 WI App 194, 634 N.W.2d 140

Most recent

  1. In re J.W.C. L.W.C. K.W.C. An2011 MT 312
  2. In re J.W.C.2011 MT 312, 265 P.3d 1265
  3. Brown County v. MARCELLA G.2001 WI App 194, 634 N.W.2d 140

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Marriage of Marks, 758 P.2d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list