340 P.3d 534
Mont.2014Background
- Child S.B.C., a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was removed from Birth Mother’s care at 27 days old after repeated parental neglect and placement instability; Biological Father initially denied paternity and declined custody.
- Child Services placed S.B.C. with an ICWA‑qualified Native foster mother in October 2011; foster mother sought to adopt.
- The Blackfeet Tribe intervened in January 2012; paternity was established for Biological Father in March 2012, but he never exercised custody or sustained visitation.
- The State filed for termination of both parents’ rights in March 2013; the Tribe moved to transfer jurisdiction to Tribal Court in April 2013.
- The District Court denied the transfer as untimely/advanced stage and found transfer would harm the child’s permanency; it later terminated both parents’ rights and granted Child Services custody with right to consent to adoption.
- This appeal challenges (1) denial of transfer to Tribal Court under ICWA §1911(b), and (2) termination of each parent’s rights; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred denying Tribe’s motion to transfer jurisdiction to Tribal Court under ICWA §1911(b) | Tribe/Birth Mother: motion timely given Tribe’s early intervention and rising stakes after State sought termination; Tribal adjudication preferred under ICWA | State/District Court: transfer at advanced stage would disrupt permanency and harm child; good cause exists to deny transfer | Affirmed: denial of transfer not an abuse of discretion; court properly found advanced stage, likely harm to child, and good cause to deny transfer |
| Whether §1912(f) required qualified expert testimony to terminate Biological Father’s rights | Biological Father: expert testimony required that continued custody would cause serious damage under ICWA | State: §1912(f) inapplicable because Biological Father never had custody of the child | Affirmed: Biological Father never had custody; §1912(f) inapplicable per Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, so termination did not require §1912(f) expert testimony |
| Whether District Court abused discretion in terminating Birth Mother’s rights under §41‑3‑609 and foster‑care presumption | Birth Mother: contested that she complied with treatment plan and that evidence was insufficient | State: Birth Mother failed treatment plan, has continued alcohol problems, two failed reunifications, and child had been in foster care long enough to trigger presumption favoring termination | Affirmed: substantial evidence Birth Mother failed treatment plan; statutory presumption (15 of 22 months) and unlikelihood of change supported termination |
| Whether District Court improperly considered Tribe’s socio‑economic capacity when denying transfer | Tribe: court impermissibly based good‑cause decision on tribal funding/adequacy and showed bias | State: court addressed timing and potential child harm; inappropriate comments did not affect core findings | Affirmed: some judicial comments were inappropriate but did not infect the good‑cause determination or require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 255 (2013) (§1912(f) inapplicable where Indian parent never had custody)
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA’s allocation of jurisdiction and purpose to protect tribal interests)
- In re T.S., 245 Mont. 242 (Mont. 1990) (Montana applies a jurisdictional "best interests" / host‑state test to determine "good cause" under §1911(b))