Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety
240 Ariz. 385
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- A.D., an Indian child eligible for membership in the Gila River Indian Community, was removed at birth and placed with non-Indian foster parents who later sought to adopt her.
- The juvenile court found A.D. dependent and, on March 18, 2015, terminated her biological parents’ parental rights and approved the foster parents as an adoptive placement; DCS was authorized to consent to adoption.
- The Community had intervened during dependency and received notice of the termination proceedings but did not move to transfer jurisdiction prior to termination.
- After termination and after an adoption petition was filed, the Community moved under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) to transfer remaining proceedings to its Children’s Court; DCS supported transfer, the foster parents and GAL opposed it.
- The juvenile court denied the motion, finding the foster parents and GAL had shown good cause to deny transfer; the Community appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) permits transfer of jurisdiction to a tribal court after parental rights have been terminated (i.e., for preadoptive/adoptive proceedings) | The Community: § 1911(b) requires transfer to tribal court absent good cause, so it can be used to transfer post-termination preadoptive/adoptive matters | Foster parents/GAL: § 1911(b) applies only to foster care placement and termination proceedings; it does not authorize transfer after termination to capture preadoptive/adoptive stages | The court held § 1911(b) does not authorize transfer after termination; transfer is limited to foster care placement or termination proceedings, so the juvenile court did not err in denying transfer |
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding "good cause" to deny transfer based on potential harm from placement change | Community: BIA guidance says potential change in placement is not a permissible ground for finding good cause | Foster parents/GAL: Transfer could disrupt the child’s placement and bonding; good cause exists to deny transfer | Court did not reach this merits dispute because it resolved the threshold statutory-interpretation issue against the Community; it affirmed denial of transfer on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (describes ICWA dual-jurisdiction scheme and transfer presumption under § 1911(b))
- In re A.P., 962 P.2d 1186 (Mont. 1998) (holding § 1911(b) applies to foster‑care and termination proceedings, not post‑termination adoption proceedings)
- In re Welfare of the Child of R.S. & L.S., 805 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2011) (concluding Congress limited § 1911(b) transfers to foster care and termination proceedings)
- Nebraska v. Elise M. (In re Zylena R.), 825 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 2012) (same conclusion that § 1911(b) does not permit transfer of post‑termination adoption proceedings)