In re People, 932 N.W.2d 770

At the start of a final dispositional hearing (Nov. 27, 2017), the Tribe orally moved to transfer an Indian child welfare proceeding to tribal court; Child's counsel objected, citing advanced stage and child's best interests.
The circuit court paused disposition and held a transfer hearing (Jan. 4, 2018). Child's counsel sought to present expert testimony from the child's pediatrician, Dr. David Whitney, about infant bonding and harms from disrupting caregiver attachments.
The Tribe objected to the proffered testimony as implicating proscribed considerations (bonding/placement); the court excluded Dr. Whitney's opinions as irrelevant, reasoning bonding alone is not good cause to deny transfer.
The court found the proceeding was not at an advanced stage (no evidence or argument occurred before the Tribe moved) and later entered a final order granting the Tribe’s motion to transfer to tribal court; Father’s objection was rejected as untimely/improperly filed.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the pediatrician’s proffered testimony without allowing a developed record to determine whether good cause existed to deny transfer; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Child's Argument	Tribe's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by excluding pediatrician testimony offered to show good cause to deny transfer	Dr. Whitney would show harms to infant from disrupting caregiver bond and broader best-interest harms (stability, health, effects of delay)	Testimony was irrelevant because bonding/placement are proscribed considerations when deciding transfer	Court abused discretion; testimony could relate to relevant best-interest factors and should have been heard
Whether the proceeding was at an "advanced stage" such that late transfer request establishes good cause to deny transfer	Child argued transfer came too late (over a year after removal) and would harm infant’s best interests	Tribe contended transfer was timely because no evidence/argument had yet been presented at dispositional hearing when transfer was requested	Circuit court found not an advanced stage; Supreme Court did not disturb that factual finding as dispositive but focused on evidentiary error
Standard and scope for considering "good cause to the contrary" under ICWA and BIA guidance	Child relied on best-interests and exceptional-circumstances concepts from BIA guidance to justify denying transfer	Tribe relied on 2016 BIA regulations proscribing certain considerations (e.g., placement/bonding)	Court recognized 2016 BIA regulations are binding but emphasized courts need a developed record and may consider permissible best-interest evidence beyond proscribed factors

Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (establishes presumptive tribal jurisdiction under ICWA)
In re A.O., 896 N.W.2d 652 (S.D. 2017) (courts need a developed record; evidentiary hearing often required before deciding transfer)
In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 1993) (same; appellate review limited without evidentiary record)
In re J.L., 654 N.W.2d 786 (S.D. 2002) (best interests may constitute good cause to deny transfer)
State v. Olson, 408 N.W.2d 748 (S.D. 1987) (relevance determinations committed to trial court discretion)