Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety, 242 Ariz. 277

Background

A.D., an enrolled member of the Gila River Indian Community, was removed from her mother shortly after birth and placed with non-Indian foster parents outside the reservation; DCS sought a plan of severance and adoption after parental-reunification efforts failed.
The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights in June 2015; the Community did not appeal that termination and later intervened in the case.
Foster parents petitioned to adopt; the Community moved to stay the adoption and then sought transfer of the proceedings to tribal court under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b).
The juvenile court denied the Community’s transfer motion, finding “good cause” under § 1911(b) to retain the case; the Community appealed; the court of appeals held § 1911(b) does not allow transfer of post-termination preadoptive/adoptive proceedings.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 1911(b) governs transfer of preadoptive and adoptive placement actions occurring after termination of parental rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) govern transfer of state preadoptive/adoptive proceedings after parental rights are terminated?	§1911(b) should allow transfer to tribal court even after termination.	§1911(b) by its terms applies only to foster-care placement and termination proceedings; it does not apply post-termination.	Held: §1911(b) addresses only foster-care and termination proceedings; it does not govern preadoptive/adoptive transfers but does not bar discretionary transfers by state courts.
Was the juvenile court’s denial of the Community’s transfer motion reversible error because it found "good cause" under §1911(b)?	The court erred in finding good cause and thus improperly denied transfer.	Even if the court stated "good cause," §1911(b) did not apply to post-termination adoption proceedings, so denial stands.	Held: No reversible error — denial affirmed because §1911(b) did not apply regardless of the good-cause finding.
Did the Community waive the right to request transfer by waiting until after termination?	N/A (Community argued transfer was permissible).	Foster parents argued waiver or untimeliness should bar transfer.	Held: No implied waiver; courts should not imply waiver of tribal rights under ICWA.
Can tribes intervene or seek transfer in preadoptive/adoptive proceedings under other authorities?	Tribe may seek transfer/intervene even if §1911(b) doesn’t apply.	Foster parents relied on §1911(b)’s silence to oppose transfer.	Held: Tribes retain inherent jurisdiction and may seek transfer or intervention under state law or other doctrines; §1911(b) silence does not prohibit transfer.

Key Cases Cited

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (recognizing tribal jurisdictional interests in Indian child custody)
Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 331 (statutory interpretation principles; ICWA construed to preserve tribal families)
Steven H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 566 (avoid literal interpretations that thwart statutory purpose)
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County, 230 Ariz. 21 (cross-appeal principles; appellee not required to cross-appeal when defending judgment)
In re Appeal in Maricopa Cty. Juvenile Action No. A-25525, 136 Ariz. 528 (tribal intervention in adoption proceedings may be allowed under state discretion)
In re M.S., 237 P.3d 161 (Okl. 2010) (§1911(b) does not bar transfer requests after termination; silence is not prohibition)
In re A.P., 962 P.2d 1186 (Mont. 1998) (§1911(b) limited to foster-care and termination transfers)
In re Welfare of the Child of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2011) (contrasting view: no authority to transfer post-termination preadoptive action)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (discussing application of §1915(a) placement preferences)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (correct result may be affirmed even if trial court stated wrong reason)
In re J.M., 718 P.2d 150 (Alaska 1986) (refusing to imply waiver of tribal rights under ICWA)
In re Guardianship of Q.G.M., 808 P.2d 684 (Okla. 1991) (tribal waiver of ICWA rights must be express)