2019 S.D. 23
S.D.2019Background
- Infant E.T. was removed one day after birth (both mother and child tested positive for methamphetamine); the Oglala Sioux Tribe intervened under ICWA.
- Child initially placed in foster care, later returned to mother under an in‑home safety plan, then removed again after mother’s subsequent arrests; foster parents had been primary caregivers since birth.
- At the start of a scheduled final dispositional hearing (Nov. 27, 2017) the Tribe orally moved to transfer the proceeding to tribal court; child’s counsel opposed, arguing the request was untimely and contrary to the child’s best interests.
- At a later transfer hearing, child’s counsel attempted to proffer expert testimony from the child’s pediatrician about bonding, developmental harm from delayed permanency, and other best‑interest effects; the Tribe objected and the circuit court excluded the proffer as irrelevant.
- The circuit court granted the Tribe’s motion to transfer without hearing the pediatrician’s testimony; the Supreme Court stayed the transfer on appeal and reversed, remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court abused discretion by excluding pediatrician’s testimony on harm from transfer/delay | Child: testimony relevant to best interests, stability, and ‘‘good cause’’ to deny transfer; bonding harms are material | Tribe: bonding/placement considerations improper for assessing transfer; lacked adequate notice of expert opinions | Court: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; testimony could be relevant to best‑interests and extraordinary‑circumstance inquiries; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether transfer motion was untimely because raised at advanced stage | Child: transfer at final hearing (after 1+ years) prejudicial; constitutes advanced stage supporting denial | Tribe: moved before any evidence or argument at final dispositional hearing; not an advanced stage | Court: factual dispute requires developed record; court erred by deciding without evidentiary hearing |
| Admissibility standard for good‑cause evidence in ICWA transfer hearings | Child: rules of evidence may be relaxed in juvenile matters; proffer should be heard | Tribe: evidentiary rules apply; proffer implicated proscribed considerations | Held: rules may be relaxed; relevance discretion exists but trial court should allow development of record before excluding testimony |
| Whether an objection by a nonpresent parent (father) was timely and in proper form | Father: counsel notified court by email and intended to state objection on record; objection timely | State/tribe: objection filed after findings, not in proper form and untimely | Court: did not resolve this on merits because evidentiary error was dispositive; remand required for full consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (establishes presumptive tribal jurisdiction under ICWA and transfer framework)
- In re A.O., 896 N.W.2d 652 (S.D. 2017) (state court should hold evidentiary hearing before deciding ICWA transfer motion)
- In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 1993) (need for developed record when resolving transfer requests)
- In re J.L., 654 N.W.2d 786 (S.D. 2002) (best interests of the child can constitute good cause to deny transfer)
- In re M.H., 691 N.W.2d 622 (S.D. 2005) (discussing BIA guidelines and their effect)
- State v. Olson, 408 N.W.2d 748 (S.D. 1987) (trial court’s relevance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sprik, 520 N.W.2d 595 (S.D. 1994) (purpose and importance of offers of proof for appellate record)
- Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416 (discussing weight of BIA guidance on ICWA matters)
- MacKaben v. MacKaben, 871 N.W.2d 617 (S.D. 2015) (defining abuse of discretion standard)