In re T.S.W.
294 Kan. 423
Kan.2012Background
- Cherokee Nation, as intervenor, challenged a district court’s deviation from ICWA placement preferences in T.S.W.’s adoption matter.
- Mother voluntarily placed T.S.W. for adoption and selected a non-Indian adoptive couple, with agency involvement and tribal profile efforts.
- Agency sought to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences, citing Mother’s preference and threat to withdraw consent.
- Tribe sought ICWA adherence; tribal profiles were offered but initial adoptive choice came from Mother’s agency profiles.
- District court granted deviation in January 2010; journal entry stated Mother’s preference and anonymity considerations reflected good cause.
- Separate adoption proceeding later led to final decree for the chosen non-Indian family, prompting tribal appeal and this jurisdictional review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper | Tribe: final order standards met via collateral order doctrine | Agency: no final appealable order; lacks jurisdiction under statutes | We have jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine |
| Did district court err in deviating from ICWA’s placement preferences | Tribe: good cause not shown; ICWA controls | Agency: Mother’s preferences justify deviation | District court erred; ICWA preferences must apply absent good cause |
| May parental preference override ICWA’s placement preferences | Tribe: parental preference legitimate only with anonymity or other narrow factors | Agency: parental preference can override where appropriate | Parent’s preference cannot override ICWA’s placement factors here |
| Did Agency properly consider 1915(a) and 1915(c) and related guidelines | Tribe: agency failed to satisfy §1915(a) first/third preferences and misapplied guidance | Agency: sought to balance preferences via flexibility in guidelines | Agency failed to comply with ICWA’s placement preferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (ICWA applies even with parental consent to non-Indian adoption)
- In re A.J.S., 288 Kan. 429 (Kan. 2009) (ICWA applies to placement of Indian/non-Indian heritage child)
- In re Adoption of B.G.J., 281 Kan. 552 (Kan. 2006) (parental preference considered; distinguishable facts; good-cause analysis guidance)
- Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597 (Kan. 2010) (jurisdictional review and collateral-order framework in Kansas)
- In re M.F., 290 Kan. 142 (Kan. 2010) (consideration of BIA guidelines in ICWA contexts)
- Flores Rentals v. Flores, 283 Kan. 476 (Kan. 2007) (final-decision concept in appellate review)