Bruce L. v. W.E.
247 P.3d 966
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Timothy is the subject of Bruce L.'s appeal from termination of parental rights and an adoption decree by the Eberts; Bruce contends ICWA protections were misapplied and his consent to adoption was improperly deemed unnecessary.
- The Eberts filed an ICWA-based adoption petition alleging Timothy is an Indian Child; Connie J. is Timothy's mother, and she testified she is an Alaska Native member of the Tribe; Bruce disputed paternity and sought custody.
- Bruce timely sought custody and filed paternity-related filings; the court appointed counsel for Bruce under ICWA in the initial proceedings; initial adoption petition was later dismissed and orders vacated.
- Bruce filed a separate custody action at five months; he claimed limited income and faced arrears, eviction, and difficulties obtaining legal representation.
- A second adoption petition was filed July 2008 after Bruce established paternity in October 2008; the court consolidated cases and Bruce obtained supervised visitation with Timothy.
- Trial in May 2009 concluded Timothy was not an Indian Child under ICWA, Bruce's consent was unnecessary due to lack of justifiable cause, and the adoption decree was entered by the Eberts; Bruce appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Timothy is an Indian child proper to ICWA. | Bruce contends Timothy is an Indian child; the parties treated him as such; trial court failed to notify. | Eberts argue ICWA applied; clear that Timothy is Indian child due to Connie's Tribe affiliation. | Vacate and remand to determine tribal membership/eligibility. |
| Whether Bruce's paternity acknowledgment suffices for ICWA protections. | Bruce reasonably acknowledged paternity prior to final disposition, invoking ICWA protections. | Bruce did not legitimize within first year; ICWA protections may be limited absent perfect compliance. | Acknowledgment sufficient to invoke ICWA protections. |
| Whether Bruce's late paternity establishment defeats ICWA rights under §1912(d)/(f). | ICWA rights should apply once paternity is acknowledged; waiting does not end protections. | Paternity established after a year may limit remedial rights under ICWA. | Not controlling; paternity acknowledgment allows ICWA protections. |
| Whether Bruce's failure to communicate or support within one year was without justifiable cause. | Adoptive parents bore burden; Bruce failed to communicate/support, justifying nonuse of rights. | Bruce's efforts to pursue custody and paternity testing show meaningful attempts; not unjustified. | The failure to communicate was not without justifiable cause; remand on the issue. |
| Whether Bruce's indigence constitutes justifiable cause for nonsupport. | Indigence can be justifiable; Bruce's low income and arrears should excuse nonpayment. | Indigence must be weighed; some evidence supports but not conclusively justifiable. | Bruce showed some justifiable cause; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost v. Spencer, 218 P.3d 678 (Alaska 2009) (fairness requires supplemental evidence when new law applied post-trial)
- In re J.M.F., 881 P.2d 1118 (Alaska 1994) (standard for reviewing factual supports in ICWA cases)
- A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1982) (judicial admissions regarding ICWA applicability limited; consequences discussed)
- In re A.J.N., 525 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1974) (consent to adoption and parental rights considerations under Alaska law)
- In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 (Alaska 1991) (ICWA consent and termination standards in Alaska)