In Re Beach
246 P.3d 845
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rachell Johnston is an enrolled Northern Cheyenne; she dated Shawn Beach, Angel's caregiver, from 2002/2003 until 2006.
- Angel Beach Johnston was born April 23, 2003; Beach provided primary care after 2006 and was designated as de facto parent in May 2007.
- David Davis alleged biologically as Angel’s father but has not acknowledged paternity or been established; Beach claims parenthood and seeks custody.
- Trial court found Angel is an Indian child, applying ICWA, and concluded Beach is a de facto parent but cannot prevail on visitation under ICWA.
- Beach appealed; Johnston cross-appealed the de facto parent finding; the court analyzed ICWA applicability and standing.
- Court held ICWA applies because Angel is an Indian child, and a de facto parent has no standing under ICWA; court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICWA apply to this custody dispute? | Beach asserts de facto parent status; ICWA does not apply to non-parent disputes. | Johnston contends Angel is an Indian child; ICWA applies to custody actions involving Indian children. | ICWA applies; Angel is an Indian child. |
| Does Beach have standing as a de facto parent under ICWA? | Beach argues de facto parent status should grant custody rights. | ICWA’s framework excludes non-parents from standing; de facto status does not trump ICWA. | De facto parent has no standing under ICWA. |
| Was the 'existing Indian family' exception applicable? | Presence of an existing Indian family would negate ICWA applicability. | Crews is superseded; ICWA applies regardless of existing Indian family. | Not applicable; ICWA applies; no existing Indian family exception. |
| Is ICWA unconstitutional as applied here? | Applying ICWA infringes state family matters, equal protection, and due process. | ICWA is within Congress's power; it does not violate equal protection or due process. | ICWA as applied does not violate constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of M.G., 148 Wash.App. 781 (2009) (ICWA applies to Indian child custody matters; fosters tribal stability)
- In re Custody of C.C.M., 149 Wash.App. 184 (2009) (ICWA applicability and standards in custody proceedings)
- In re Adoption of Crews, 118 Wash.2d 561 (1992) (existing Indian family exception; superseded by statute)
- United States v. Lomayaoma, 86 F.3d 142 (9th Cir. 1996) (Congressional power to regulate Indian affairs separate from commerce)
- In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16 (Colo.App. 2007) (no fundamental right to stable home; ICWA preferences reasonable)