In re E.J.B., 846 S.E.2d 472

DSS filed initial juvenile petition in April 2015; respondent-father repeatedly stated Cherokee affiliation in multiple reports and at a Child and Family Team meeting.
The trial court initially found ICWA did not apply early in the proceedings; case proceeded with multiple continuances and custody changes, and the children remained in DSS custody.
A new juvenile petition was filed January 2, 2018; DSS moved to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights on August 24, 2018; the trial court terminated his rights on February 15, 2019.
After the termination and while appeal was pending, DSS sent post-termination notices (Aug. 2019) by mail to three federally recognized Cherokee tribes and the appropriate BIA regional directors.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation replied that the children were not eligible members; the United Keetoowah Band signed receipt but did not respond.
The Supreme Court held the trial court failed to satisfy ICWA/implementing regulation notice requirements before termination, found the post-termination notices legally deficient, reversed the termination order, and remanded for proper notice to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with ICWA/25 C.F.R. § 23 notice duties before terminating parental rights	Post-termination notices and tribe responses cured any prior deficiency; appeal moot	Trial court had reason to know ICWA might apply and failed to give required pre-termination notice; jurisdictional error requires reversal	Court: trial court failed to comply with ICWA/regulations; reversal and remand required
Whether post-termination notices cured the pre-termination notice failure	Yes — adequate actual notice was provided after termination and two tribes disclaimed membership	No — post-termination notices were defective (missing required contents and not timely) and cannot cure the prior jurisdictional defect	Court: post-termination notices were legally insufficient under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.111(d); cure denied

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (contextual discussion of ICWA purpose and federal concern over removal of Indian children)
In re T.H.T., 362 N.C. 446 (N.C. 2008) (emphasizing timeliness and best interests in juvenile proceedings)
In re A.P., 371 N.C. 14 (N.C. 2018) (refusing to elevate form over substance in juvenile statutes)
In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101 (N.C. 2015) (deference to trial court’s reasonable procedural choices when supported)
In re J.T., 363 N.C. 1 (N.C. 2009) (declining to invalidate proceedings over technical defects where substance satisfied the proceeding)
In re L.W.S., 255 N.C. App. 296 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (noting regulatory shift placing inquiry burden on courts to ask on-record whether matter may involve an Indian child)
State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 289 N.C. 286 (N.C. 1976) (permitting judicial notice of matters outside the record in appropriate circumstances)