241 Cal. App. 4th 1289
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Fresno County Department of Social Services filed dependency petitions for three children (Sadie, Tyler, Savannah); ICWA notice indicated Indian heritage and the Northfork/ North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (Tribe) participated.
- The Tribe conducted a tribal customary adoption (TCA) process, approved Kristy C. as the TCA parent, and issued a TCA order describing custody, visitation conditions (including drug testing), and tribal findings.
- The juvenile court considered TCA as a permanency option under Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.24 and continued hearings while the Tribe completed its assessments and filed the TCA order.
- Father objected to the TCA order’s visitation conditions (notably drug testing given his asserted medical marijuana use) and argued the Tribe lacked jurisdiction and that he was denied due process in the tribal process.
- The juvenile court selected TCA as the permanent plan, afforded full faith and credit to the Tribe’s TCA order, and father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred by giving full faith and credit to the Tribe’s TCA order because Tribe lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under ICWA | The department/juvenile court: state law (Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.24) authorizes TCA and requires juvenile courts to give full faith and credit to a tribe’s TCA order when TCA is selected; Tribe need not have invoked § 1911 transfer or exclusive tribal jurisdiction for TCA orders to be considered | Father: Tribe did not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a)/(b); without transfer or tribal exercise of jurisdiction the TCA order is not an order entitled to full faith and credit | Court rejected father’s argument: § 366.24 authorizes TCA filings and juvenile court retains jurisdiction until final adoption; Laura F. is distinguishable (involved a tribal resolution pre‑TCA legislation), so full faith and credit was properly afforded |
| Whether juvenile court erred by affording full faith and credit because father was denied procedural due process in tribal proceedings | Department/juvenile court: § 366.24(c)(7) allows parents to present evidence to the tribe; father had contact with the Tribe and opportunity to be heard; TCA statutes do not require parental consent and TCA orders need only describe (not guarantee) visitation | Father: He lacked a formal tribal hearing or adequate opportunity to contest visitation terms (esp. drug‑testing given medical marijuana) | Court held father was given opportunity to present evidence to the Tribe per § 366.24(c)(7); TCA statutes do not guarantee visitation or parental consent (§ 366.24(c)(10),(11)); no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.R., 208 Cal.App.4th 751 (2012) (explains purpose of TCA as adoption alternative that preserves parental rights and tribal membership)
- In re A.M., 215 Cal.App.4th 339 (2013) (discusses TCA mechanics and protection of tribal interests)
- In re Laura F., 83 Cal.App.4th 583 (2000) (tribal resolution not transferral; distinguished because it predated TCA statutory scheme)
- In re M.M., 154 Cal.App.4th 897 (2007) (transfer of dependency to tribal court under § 1911(b) deprives state court of jurisdiction)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (after reunification services are terminated, focus shifts to child’s need for permanency)