920 N.W.2d 496
S.D.2018Background
- Child (R.T.A.), four, was removed with siblings after mother’s drug use and unstable housing; DSS placed the children in non‑Native foster care in Sioux Falls.
- Father (S.T.A.) had intermittent contact with DSS, was incarcerated during much of the case, and received limited visitation; father is affiliated with Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe but not an enrolled member.
- DSS notified and involved the Rosebud and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes; Rosebud intervened and participated, Cheyenne River did not appear at disposition.
- Father identified several reservation relatives as potential placements; DSS sent letters and attempted follow‑up, but relatives largely did not respond or were not licensed/endorsed by the tribe.
- Trial court found active efforts were made, parents failed reunification, placement preferences were either followed or there was good cause to depart, and terminated father’s parental rights; father appealed only on the ICWA/active‑efforts ground.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSS failed to make “active efforts” under ICWA by not placing child with father’s reservation relatives | DSS did not pursue/place child with Native relatives on Cheyenne River Reservation; placement preferences were ignored | Placement preferences are separate from active‑efforts analysis; DSS explored relatives and had good cause to depart when no suitable placement was available | Affirmed: active efforts were shown; placement preferences either followed or good cause justified departure |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. S.H.E., 824 N.W.2d 420 (S.D. 2012) (active‑efforts standard and burden: must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People ex rel. J.S.B., Jr., 691 N.W.2d 611 (S.D. 2005) (ICWA active‑efforts requirement)
- In re Welfare of M.S.S., 465 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (reversal where tribe‑endorsed, identified Native custodians were not considered)
- In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing M.S.S. where proposed placements lacked tribal endorsement or credibility)
- David S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 270 P.3d 767 (Alaska 2012) (placement preferences not a basis under §1914 to invalidate termination; placement and active efforts are analytically separate)
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (ICWA precedent recognizing tribal interests in child custody)