Matter of J.S. YINC, 2014 MT 79

J.S. is an Indian child (Curyung Tribe) born in 1998; S.F. is J.S.'s putative father and a member of the Curyung Tribe.
The State previously transferred custody and engaged in various guardianship/termination proceedings beginning in 2002; paternity was established in 2004.
The District Court ultimately granted guardianship of J.S. to his foster family after 11 years in the system and multiple treatment plans for S.F.
ICWA required notice to S.F. and the Curyung Tribe, active efforts to reunify, and expert testimony; issues arose about notice timing and adequacy.
The guardianship hearing in March 2013 proceeded with ICWA expert testimony and evidence regarding J.S.'s wishes and emotional well-being.
The court concluded that guardianship to the foster family was in J.S.'s best interests and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State violate ICWA by improper notice to S.F. and the tribe?	S.F. and tribe lacked adequate notice under ICWA.	Notice deficiencies were cured by later notices; tribe participated.	No ICWA notice violation; later notice satisfied requirements.
Did the State fail to make active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family?	State failed to actively assist S.F. from 2002 onward and reduce separation.	State provided multiple treatment plans and services; S.F. showed little interest.	§ 1912(d) active efforts not violated; Baby Girl guidance limits application when no prior custody existed.
Did the State fail to provide proper expert testimony for guardianship and continued placement outside S.F.'s care?	ICWA expert testimony did not establish potential harm from termination; insufficient evidence of harm.	Itumulria was a qualified ICWA expert; testimony supported continued placement.	Expert testimony adequate; guardianship supported by evidence and J.S.'s wishes.

In re J.W.C., 2011 MT 312, 363 Mont. 85, 265 P.3d 1265 (Mont.) (standard for clearly erroneous findings; legal conclusions reviewed)
In re G.S., 2002 MT 245, 312 Mont. 108, 59 P.3d 1063 (Mont.) (active efforts and ICWA standards; context for review)
In re M.P.M., 1999 MT 78, 294 Mont. 87, 976 P.2d 988 (Mont.) (ICWA notice and standards of review)
In re M.E.M., 1984 Mont. 209 Mont. 192, 679 P.2d 1241 (Mont.) (cited for ICWA framework in guardianship/termination)
In re D.S.B., 2013 MT 112, 370 Mont. 37, 300 P.3d 702 (Mont.) (evidence-based approach to ICWA objections and guardianship)
In re K.B., 2013 MT 133, 370 Mont. 254, 301 P.3d 836 (Mont.) (ICWA active efforts and guardianship standards)
Baby Girl, 570 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (Supreme Court) (limits § 1912(d) applicability when no preexisting parent-child custody)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (Supreme Court) (central ICWA interpretation related to breakup of Indian family)