Interest of L.S., 2012 S.D. 22

L.S., age three, was removed after mother C.S. was extremely intoxicated; C.S. BAC at .34.
C.S. has a history of alcohol abuse with a long pattern of relapse and noncompliance with treatment.
DSS attempted reunification with a case plan; C.S. struggled with appointments and often attended intoxicated or in withdrawal.
L.S. thrived in foster care; health and behavior improved, while C.S.’s inconsistent visitation harmed L.S.’s development.
Dispositional hearing occurred in 2011; C.S. failed to attend and did not pursue consistent treatment or parenting programs.
C.S. is Native American and claimed eligibility for Crow Creek Sioux Tribe enrollment; tribe later determined L.S. was not eligible for enrollment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ICWA applies to L.S. as an Indian child	C.S. contends L.S. is Indian, eligible for enrollment, triggering ICWA.	Tribal membership determinations are binding; L.S. is not enrolled or eligible; ICWA not applicable.	ICWA does not apply; L.S. not an Indian child under ICWA.
Whether termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative	C.S. argues more time or an alternate plan could work.	Best interests and stability require termination; more time not in L.S.’s best interest.	Termination was the least restrictive alternative and in L.S.’s best interests.

In re A.S., 614 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 2000) (best interests and least restrictive alternative framework)
In re E.L. & R.L., 707 N.W.2d 841 (S.D. 2005) (reasonable efforts and best interests analysis)
In re A.L., et al., 442 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 1989) (tribal deference in ICWA circumstances)
In re Phillip A.C., 149 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2006) (tribal membership determinations are binding in ICWA)
United States v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1979) (enrollment is a common evidence standard for Indian status)
In re Adoption of C.D., 751 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 2008) (tribal eligibility determinations are conclusive)