471 P.3d 853
Wash.2020Background
- Kent police removed two toddlers (Z.G. and M.G.) for alleged neglect on June 27, 2018; Department filed dependency petitions stating mother had Tlingit‑Haida and Cherokee heritage and father reported possible Umatilla heritage.
- At the 72‑hour shelter care hearing the social worker testified he had contacted Tlingit & Haida and learned the maternal grandmother was enrolled but the mother and children were not enrolled; both parents testified the mother was eligible and the children might be eligible for tribal membership.
- The trial court found no "reason to know" the children were Indian children, applied non‑ICWA emergency removal standards, and placed the children in licensed foster care despite available culturally appropriate placements.
- Tlingit & Haida and the Klawock Cooperative Association later intervened and established the children were tribally enrolled; the trial court subsequently applied ICWA/WICWA but the Court of Appeals had affirmed the original shelter‑care ruling.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review and reversed the shelter‑care ruling, holding that an indication of tribal heritage by any participant at a proceeding constitutes a "reason to know" that triggers ICWA and WICWA protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greer) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court has "reason to know" an Indian child is involved when a participant indicates tribal heritage | Indication of tribal heritage by a participant is sufficient to trigger ICWA/WICWA notice and protections | "Reason to know" requires evidence of tribal membership or that a parent/child is a tribal member | Yes; any participant's indication of tribal heritage suffices to create "reason to know" |
| Whether WICWA independently requires the same "reason to know" standard | WICWA's "may be" language and membership definitions mean mention of heritage is enough | WICWA should be read coextensively with ICWA and requires membership evidence | Yes; WICWA independently supports treating indicated heritage as "reason to know" |
| Whether the record in this case gave the trial court "reason to know" during the 72‑hour hearing | Social worker and both parents testified about eligibility/heritage, so record supported "reason to know" | Investigation was incomplete and there was no proof of enrollment at that time | Yes; testimony and petition statements gave the court "reason to know" |
| Remedy for failure to apply ICWA/WICWA at shelter hearing | Courts should reverse and apply heightened standards and notice requirements; remand for compliance | Department argued the error was not reversible in light of later tribal findings and subsequent proceedings | Court reversed the shelter‑care ruling and remanded for proceedings consistent with ICWA/WICWA |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (recognizing ICWA's national purpose to protect tribal interests)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribal sovereignty to define membership)
- Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (canons: statutes construed liberally in favor of Indians)
- In re Adoption of T.A.W., 186 Wn.2d 828 (Wash. 2016) (ICWA/WICWA coextensive interpretation; overruling Crews on existing‑Indian‑family exception)
- In re Adoption of Infant Boy Crews, 118 Wn.2d 561 (Wash. 1992) (discussed historical "existing Indian family" exception that was later disapproved)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (quoted on not perpetuating legal wrongs)