Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J.E.
176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Alexandria is l/64th Choctaw and an Indian child under ICWA; foster care began when she was 17 months old.
- Tribe consented to Alexandria’s placement with non-Indian de facto parents to aid reunification efforts with the father.
- After reunification efforts failed, ICWA-guided plan favored placement with paternal extended family in Utah; de facto parents sought good cause to remain.
- Trial court held good cause did not exist to depart from ICWA preferences and ordered gradual transition to the Utah family.
- De facto parents challenged the order on constitutional grounds and arguments that ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences did not apply when the tribe consented to out-of-preference foster care.
- California appellate court reversed and remanded to apply a correct good cause standard, considering best interests and bond with the current foster family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ICWA adoptive placement preferences apply when the tribe consents to out-of-preference foster care? | R.s argue tribe consent precludes application of §1915(a) preferences. | ICWA §1915(a) applies regardless of tribe consent; foster care placement remains governed by ICWA. | ICWA adoptive placement preferences apply. |
| What standard of proof governs the ICWA good cause exception to §1915(a)? | Preponderance of the evidence suffices because statute is silent. | Clear and convincing is required for good cause. | Clear and convincing evidence is required. |
| Should the court consider the child’s bond with the current foster family in the good cause analysis? | Bonding is a relevant factor supporting good cause. | Bonding should not override ICWA placement priorities. | Bonding must be considered; error to exclude it. |
| Must the court consider the child’s best interests in determining good cause to depart from ICWA preferences? | Best interests align with keeping child with current caregivers if warranted. | Best interests not required to override statutory preferences. | Best interests must be weighed in good cause analysis. |
| Do de facto parents have standing to challenge ICWA’s constitutionality? | They have independent standing as custodians with interest in stability. | They lack standing because they lack a constitutionally protected interest in the child. | De facto parents lack standing to challenge the ICWA’s constitutionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.A., 167 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (good cause evidence and bonding considered in ICWA context)
- In re Desiree F., 83 Cal.App.4th 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (bonding considerations in good cause analysis)
- In re C.H., 299 Mont. 62 (Mont. 2000) (certainty of harm standard rejected in some jurisdictions)
- Adoption of Holloway, 732 P.2d 962 (Utah 1986) (psychological bond not sole basis to defeat ICWA preferences)
- In re Santos Y, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (existing Indian family doctrine questioned; ICWA application discussed)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (Supreme Court 2013) (ICWA application to continued custody and placement preferences)
- In re Vincent M., 161 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (standing and ICWA considerations for de facto parents)