in the Interest of D. C. B., a Child, 12-21-00175-CV

Mother C.J.H. and father L.A.B., Jr. are parents of D.C.B.; Department filed for protection, conservatorship, and termination on Nov. 12, 2019; Department became temporary managing conservator.
After a jury trial the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that C.J.H. committed statutory grounds for termination (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1) subsections D, E, N, O, P) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; mother appealed only on ICWA grounds.
Department’s Feb. 10, 2020 permanency report noted possible American Indian status reported by the parents, which triggered the ICWA inquiry/notice obligations.
On Mar. 4, 2020 the Department sent certified ICWA notices to the BIA, Secretary of the Interior, four regional directors, and multiple tribes (including Cherokee and Choctaw groups); some tribes responded that the child was not eligible for enrollment.
The trial court found proper notice was sent and that D.C.B. is not an "Indian child" under 25 U.S.C. §1903; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the Department and court complied with ICWA notice/determination requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court/Department complied with ICWA notice and inquiry duties when parents reported possible Native ancestry	C.J.H.: Department failed to send required notices to the appropriate regional directors and Secretary, failed to notify Cherokee Nation, and failed to determine whether D.C.B. is an Indian child	Department: It timely sent certified notices to the BIA, Secretary, appropriate regional directors, and listed tribes; tribes investigated and determined child ineligible; trial court made factual finding child is not an Indian child	Court held Department satisfied ICWA notice/inquiry obligations, trial court’s finding that D.C.B. is not an Indian child stands; issue overruled and judgment affirmed

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (describing Congress’s purpose in enacting ICWA)
In re W.D.H., 43 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (recognizing ICWA’s notice requirements and parental standing to challenge notice)
In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (holding that information suggesting tribal affiliation gives court reason to believe child is Indian and triggers inquiry/notice)
In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (discussing BIA Guidelines and state court duty to investigate alleged Indian status)