J.P. and S.P. (Foster Parents) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, G.C. (Mother), W.F. (Father), J.F. (Child), and Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, 506 P.3d 3

J.F., an Indian child under ICWA, was subject to CINA proceedings in Alaska; the Sun’aq Tribe petitioned to transfer jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b).
The Alaska superior court ordered transfer to the Sun’aq Tribe (May 26, 2021); the tribe accepted jurisdiction (June 3, 2021).
The tribal court placed J.F. with paternal relatives in New Mexico (June 9, 2021) and affirmed that placement (June 16, 2021).
Foster parents J.P. and S.P. moved to stay the transfer, for reconsideration, and appealed the transfer and placement orders; state courts and this Court denied emergency stays.
The Alaska Supreme Court invited briefing on (1) whether the foster parents were parties entitled to appeal and (2) whether the public‑interest mootness exception applied; the Court assumed without deciding that the foster parents had intervenor status but dismissed the appeal as moot.
Chief Justice Winfree (joined by Justice Carney) concurred, expressing concern about foster‑parent intervention post Zander B., especially in ICWA cases, and urged stricter scrutiny of such interventions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Were the foster parents parties and entitled to appeal?	J.P./S.P.: They were granted intervenor‑party status and may appeal.	State: Even if intervenors, appeal is moot and relief unavailable.	Court assumed without deciding intervenor status but dismissed appeal as moot.
2) Was the superior court’s transfer to the Sun’aq Tribe lawful under ICWA (is Sun’aq the child’s "tribe")?	J.P./S.P. & Amicus: Transfer invalid because Sun’aq lacks relationship/minimum contacts with child (not child’s tribe).	State/Tribe: Transfer followed §1911(b) procedures.	Court did not decide the merits; issue is moot.
3) Could the state courts grant effective relief (vacate transfer or tribal placement)?	J.P./S.P.: A ruling that transfer was improper would provide relief (return case to state court).	State/Tribe: State courts cannot compel a separate tribal sovereign to relinquish jurisdiction or vacate tribal orders.	Court: Even if transfer reversed, it cannot force tribal court to vacate placement; no meaningful relief—moot.
4) Should the public‑interest exception to mootness apply?	J.P./S.P.: Issues are important and recurring; public interest justifies review.	State: Exception not satisfied; factors not met.	Court declined to apply the exception and dismissed appeal as moot.

State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs. v. Zander B., 474 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2020) (permissive foster‑parent intervention allowed in rare CINA cases; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Starr v. George, 175 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2008) (state court refused to enforce tribal adoption order where tribal proceedings denied due process)
Peter A. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991 (Alaska 2006) (mootness doctrine and public‑interest exception framework)
Simmonds v. Parks, 329 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2014) (requirement to give full faith and credit to tribal judgments in ICWA child‑custody matters and exhaustion of tribal remedies)
Osterkamp v. Stiles, 235 P.3d 178 (Alaska 2010) (discussion of foster‑parent and psychological‑parent concepts; limits on third‑party custody claims)
Carter v. Brodrick, 644 P.2d 850 (Alaska 1982) (factors for psychological‑parent status)
In re M.M., 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (state court cannot compel tribal court of separate sovereign to return jurisdiction)