Beach v. Johnston
159 Wash. App. 686
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- This is a custody dispute where the petitioner asserts de facto parent standing for Angel Johnston.
- Angel is an Indian child, daughter of Rachell Johnston (Northern Cheyenne) and Angel’s mother; Shawn Beach acted as de facto parent.
- Mr. Beach petitioned for primary residential placement in May 2007 and acknowledged potential paternity claims by David Davis.
- The trial court ruled Angel is Indian, ICWA applies, and Beach, though de facto parent, does not share parity with Johnston for custody.
- The court denied Beach’s petition in December 2009; Beach appealed and Johnston cross-appealed the de facto parent finding.
- The appellate court analyzes ICWA applicability and Beach’s standing under ICWA and related constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICWA apply to this custody dispute | Beach argues ICWA applies only to parent–child actions | Court should apply ICWA since Angel is an Indian child | Yes, ICWA applies because Angel is an Indian child under ICWA §1903(4) and 25 U.S.C. §1902. |
| Whether Beach has standing as a de facto parent under ICWA | Beach claims de facto parent status gives standing | ICWA does not recognize de facto parent standing for custody | Even if de facto status exists, ICWA applies and Beach lacks standing to custody under ICWA. |
| Whether Washington’s post-Crews framework governs ICWA applicability | Crews-made reasons to deny ICWA applicability | Statutory revision overruled Crews, making ICWA applicable irrespective of tribal ties | Crews is superseded by RCW 26.33.040(1), and ICWA applies if the child is an Indian child. |
| Constitutionality of ICWA as applied | ICWA violates federal constitutional rights (equal protection, due process, federalism) | ICWA is constitutional and rationally related to protecting Indian families | ICWA does not violate due process, equal protection, or federalism; it serves a legitimate federal interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of M.G., 148 Wn. App. 781 (2009) (ICWA applies to Indian child custody proceedings and foster care placement)
- In re Custody of C.C.M., 149 Wn. App. 184 (2009) (interpretation of ICWA in custody matters)
- In re Adoption of Crews, 118 Wn.2d 561 (1992) (Crews fact pattern distinguished; overruled by statutory revision)
- RCW 26.33.040(1), (statute) (2004) (requires ICWA applicability where child is an Indian child)
- United States v. Lomayaoma, 86 F.3d 142 (9th Cir. 1996) (Congress power over Indian affairs distinct from commerce power)
- In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16 (Colo. App. 2007) (constitutional challenge to ICWA's equal protection/due process implications)
- Baby Boy C., 27 A.D.3d 34 (2005) (equal protection/due process discussion in ICWA context)
- A.B., 663 N.W.2d 625 (N.W. 2003) (due process considerations in ICWA)
- Angus, 60 Or. App. 546 (1982) (equal protection considerations in ICWA context)