In re Children of Shirley T., 199 A.3d 221

Background

Two consolidated ICWA child-protection matters involving (1) the son (age 13) of Shirley T. (mother) and David W. (father) and (2) the niece (age 12) for whom Shirley T. is guardian. Both children are Indian children eligible for Oglala Sioux Tribe membership and do not reside on the reservation.
DHHS removed the children to state custody in 2016; jeopardy orders were entered against the mother (both children) and the father (as to the son).
In December 2017 the mother, father, and the Tribe moved to transfer jurisdiction to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court in South Dakota; the Tribal Court agreed to accept jurisdiction.
The District Court (Portland) held a contested evidentiary hearing. Key witnesses and evidence (counselor, teachers, foster families, DHHS caseworkers, GAL) were located in Maine; the Tribal Court would be ~2,000 miles away in South Dakota.
The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that good cause existed under ICWA §1911(b) to deny transfer because transferring jurisdiction would create undue evidentiary hardship and practical obstacles to adjudication (not because of placement or best-interest considerations).
The parents appealed the denial of transfer; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred in finding "good cause" under ICWA to deny transfer to the Tribal Court	Mother/Father: Court improperly relied on placement-related considerations (children’s desire to stay in Maine) and not legally permissible factors; transfer should have been granted because Tribal Court accepted jurisdiction	DHHS/Gal: Good cause exists because all relevant witnesses and evidence are in Maine and transfer would impose undue evidentiary hardship and practical burdens	Affirmed — Good cause found based on evidentiary hardship and practical obstacles to adjudication rather than placement or best-interest analysis
Whether placement or best-interest factors may constitute good cause to deny transfer	Mother/Father: Court improperly considered impacts of potential placement change (move to South Dakota)	State: Placement considerations are generally prohibited under BIA guidance; court did not base decision on placement but on jurisdictional/evidentiary concerns	Held — Placement/best-interest are not proper bases here; court avoided relying on those factors
Whether evidentiary hardship (distance, witness availability, practicality of remote testimony) is a permissible basis for good cause	Mother/Father: Argued remote testimony/tech can mitigate distance; court overvalued logistical burdens	DHHS/Gal: Geographic distance and inability to effectively present Maine-based evidence to Tribal Court create good cause to deny transfer	Held — Evidentiary hardship is a permissible and supported basis for good cause; court reasonably weighed available accommodations and found them inadequate
Standard of review and burden on party opposing transfer	Father: (implicitly) review should favor tribal jurisdiction; error if court exercised broad discretion against transfer	DHHS/Gal: Trial court applied clear-and-convincing standard to party opposing transfer and its factual findings deserve deference	Held — Mixed review: legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error, ultimate decision for abuse of discretion; trial court’s findings supported and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (recognizes tribal jurisdiction presumption and ICWA’s transfer framework)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (forum non conveniens factors used as analogue for ICWA good-cause inquiry)
Corning v. Corning, 563 A.2d 379 (Me. 1989) (forum non conveniens principles and private interest factors)
In re Trever I., 973 A.2d 752 (Me. 2009) (discussing ICWA purpose and application in Maine proceedings)
In re S.B.C., 340 P.3d 534 (Mont. 2014) (illustrative treatment of standard of review for ICWA good-cause determinations)