In re E.T., 927 N.W.2d 111

Background

Tribal government moved orally at the outset of the final dispositional hearing to transfer an ICWA abuse-and-neglect case to tribal court; Child's counsel objected as untimely and contrary to Child's best interests.
The circuit court suspended the dispositional hearing and held a transfer hearing; Child's counsel proffered expert testimony from Child's pediatrician, Dr. David Whitney, about harms from disrupting an infant–caregiver bond.
The Tribe objected that bonding/placement concerns are proscribed considerations; the court excluded Dr. Whitney's testimony as irrelevant, noting bonding alone is not good cause but that best interests are relevant.
The court found the proceeding was not at an advanced stage and later entered a final order granting the Tribe’s motion to transfer; the transfer order was stayed pending appeal.
The appellate court held the exclusion of Dr. Whitney’s testimony was an abuse of discretion because his proffered testimony could bear on best-interest factors (stability, health, harms from delay); it reversed and remanded for a new transfer determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by excluding Dr. Whitney’s proffered testimony on bond/harms and broader best-interest effects	Child: Dr. Whitney’s opinions about harms from disrupting the infant–caregiver bond and effects of delay are relevant to good-cause/best-interests and should be received	Tribe: Bonding/placement considerations are proscribed for transfer determinations; the proffered testimony was irrelevant	Court abused its discretion; proffered testimony could be relevant to best-interest factors (stability, health, extraordinary circumstances) and should have been heard
Whether the case was at an “advanced stage” so as to constitute good cause to deny transfer	Child: Transfer motion was untimely and made at advanced stage (final dispositional hearing) harming Child’s interests	Tribe: Motion was timely because no argument or evidence had been presented before the oral motion	Circuit court’s factual finding that proceeding was not at an advanced stage stood, but the transfer decision was reversed on evidentiary grounds; remand required for reconsideration with proper evidence
Whether objections to transfer were procedurally timely (Father’s objection)	Father: Objected (by counsel) after findings but before final order; should be considered	Court/Tribe: Father’s objection was untimely or not in proper form	Court previously found Father’s post-findings objection untimely/improper; appellate decision did not need to resolve this because evidentiary error was dispositive

Key Cases Cited

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (ICWA creates presumptively tribal jurisdiction and requires transfer absent parent objection, tribal declination, or good cause)
Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416 (1977) (discussing weight of BIA guidelines)
State v. Olson, 408 N.W.2d 748 (S.D. 1987) (relevance determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Sprik, 520 N.W.2d 595 (S.D. 1994) (purpose of offer of proof for appellate record)
In re A.L., 442 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 1989) (BIA guidelines given important but not controlling significance)
In re M.H., 691 N.W.2d 622 (S.D. 2005) (BIA regulations vs. guidelines distinction)
In re A.O., 896 N.W.2d 652 (S.D. 2017) (need for an evidentiary record when ruling on transfer motions)
In re J.L., 654 N.W.2d 786 (S.D. 2002) (best interests may constitute good cause to deny transfer)