In re L.S., 812 N.W.2d 505

C.S., Native American, was the mother of L.S., a three-year-old involved in a removal and later termination of parental rights proceeding.
L.S. lived with C.S. and was repeatedly affected by C.S.'s heavy alcohol use and related conduct, including missed visits and alcohol-related incidents.
C.S. underwent several treatment attempts for alcohol abuse, but inconsistent participation and relapses persisted through 2011.
DSS filed for termination of parental rights; a dispositional hearing occurred and the circuit court terminated C.S.'s parental rights in August 2011.
C.S. is purportedly eligible to enroll in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, but she did not enroll; the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe concluded L.S. was not eligible for enrollment.
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe advised that tribal membership determinations are binding, and the tribe chose not to intervene; the court held ICWA inapplicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ICWA apply where the child is not eligible for tribal membership?	C.S. argues L.S. is an Indian child because of potential enrollment and tribal heritage.	State contends L.S. is not an Indian child since not eligible for enrollment and tribe found ineligible.	ICWA does not apply; L.S. is not an Indian child.
Was termination of parental rights the least restrictive alternative for L.S.?	C.S. contends more time or alternatives could be pursued to reunify safely.	Court found sufficient evidence that best interests require termination and that it was least restrictive.	Yes; termination was the least restrictive alternative.

In re E.L. & R.L., 2005 S.D. 124, 707 N.W.2d 841 (S.D. 2005) (parens of best interests and least restrictive alternative standard are factual)
In re A.S., 2000 S.D. 94, 614 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 2000) (best interests and least restrictive standard guidance)
Matter of J.Y., 502 N.W.2d 860 (S.D. 1993) (child should not wait for parents to acquire parenting skills)