G.F. v. State, 405 P.3d 755

Child born 2008 to Mother (then 13); Child initially adjudicated neglected in 2010 and again in 2014 after domestic violence and Mother's substance use.
DCFS removed Child to foster care in June–July 2014; Child remained with the same non-Native foster family from July 2014 onward and showed clinical improvement and bonding there.
At removal (June–July 2014) neither Child nor Mother were enrolled in the Cherokee Nation; Cherokee Nation confirmed Child did not meet ICWA’s definition of an "Indian child" in June 2014.
Mother and Child enrolled in the Cherokee Nation in July 2015; after that date the tribe intervened and ICWA obligations applied going forward.
State pursued termination of Mother’s parental rights in 2016; trial court found (unchallenged) extensive services were offered, Mother failed reunification, removal from foster family would cause trauma, the State made active efforts under ICWA, and good cause existed to deviate from ICWA placement preferences.
Juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights and denied motion to invalidate the July 2014 custody order; Mother appealed only on ICWA-related grounds and the denial of that motion.

Issue	Mother's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the child’s bond with a non‑Native foster family can constitute "good cause" to deviate from ICWA placement preferences	Bond with foster family reached good‑cause standard and should control placement	Good cause cannot be based on bonding if initial placement violated ICWA; here removal from foster home would harm the child	Court held bonding may be good cause when initial placement complied with ICWA; here ICWA did not apply at initial placement, so bond could be considered as good cause to deviate
Whether the juvenile court erred by crediting the State’s ICWA expert over Mother’s Cherokee‑Nation expert on whether the State made "active efforts"	Mother’s expert said active efforts were lacking and was more culturally qualified; court should have credited him	Expert testimony not required; factfinder may weigh experts; State presented evidence of active efforts and the court found Mother’s expert not credible
Whether the July 2014 custody order should be invalidated because ICWA applied then	ICWA applied at the outset because Child was eligible for enrollment and Mother was obtaining membership, so the Custody Order violated ICWA	Child did not meet ICWA’s statutory definition in July 2014 (neither parent a tribal member then); Cherokee Nation confirmed Child was not an "Indian child" at that time	Court held ICWA did not apply to the July 2014 custody order; motion to invalidate was properly denied

In re C.D., 200 P.3d 194 (discusses ICWA placement preferences and the tension between long‑term non‑ICWA placements and ICWA goals)
In re Alexandria P., 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 468 (bonding to non‑Indian foster parents may be a relevant component of good cause where placement initially complied with ICWA)
In re Desiree F., 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688 (court rejected considering bonding caused by a prior placement that flagrantly violated ICWA as good cause to deviate)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (placement preferences in ICWA are inapplicable where no alternative eligible party has sought adoption)
In re A.V., 297 P.3d 1019 (ICWA does not require expert testimony to prove that active efforts were made under section 1912(d))