Ebert v. Bruce L.
340 P.3d 1048
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Eberts sought to adopt Timothy, an Indian child, despite Bruce L.’s objections to consent.
- AS 25.23.040 requires parental consent unless exceptions apply; AS 25.23.050(a)(2) excuses noncustodial consent if the parent failed to communicate or support for at least one year.
- Bruce failed to pay child support from July 2007 to December 2008 and claimed no obligation; he also had limited contact with Timothy.
- Paternity was established in October 2008, making Bruce a parent for purposes of the adoption statute.
- ICWA was argued to apply; the trial court and this court addressed whether ICWA preempts state adoption law and whether Bruce’s failure to support was justifiable.
- The superior court initially concluded ICWA preempted AS 25.23.050(a)(2)(B); on remand, it ruled Bruce’s lack of support was justifiable and adopted an interim custody arrangement, leading to denial of the adoption petition on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICWA preempt AS 25.23.050(a)(2)(B)? | Eberts argue ICWA preemption blocks state exception. | No conflict; ICWA applies alongside state law. | ICWA does not preempt AS 25.23.050(a)(2)(B). |
| Is Bruce a parent under AS 25.23.040/.050 after establishing paternity? | Bruce cannot rely on state consent if not a parent. | Bruce became a father when paternity was established; consent required unless justified. | Bruce is a parent; his consent is required unless justified by AS 25.23.050(a)(2). |
| Was Bruce’s failure to support Timothy justifiable? | Eberts contend lack of support is unjustified. | Bruce’s indigence and circumstances justify nonpayment. | The superior court did not clearly err; Bruce’s failure to support was justifiable. |
| Did ICWA § 1912(d)/(f) affect the adoption outcome at trial? | ICWA active efforts and protection required adoption denial. | Active efforts were not proven to be ineffective or to cause harm beyond reasonable doubt. | ICWA considerations did not control the outcome; state law consent governs here; adoption denied on state-law grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce L. v. W.E., 247 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2011) (paternity established; lack of justifiable cause for nonpayment considered)
- In re Adoption of L.A.H., 597 P.2d 513 (Alaska 1979) (parental consent and paternity rules under Alaska law)
- Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA and state law interplay; harmonization guidance)
- Allen v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 203 P.3d 1155 (Alaska 2009) (conflicts between statutes and federal law; interpretation guidance)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (ICWA considerations in private adoptions)