Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
230 Ariz. 339
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Navajo Nation appeals the juvenile court’s good-cause finding to deviate from ICWA placement preferences and allow Z. to stay with the current non-relative, non-Indian adoptive placement.
- Z. was placed with the current placement from one month old; DES and the Nation debated ICWA applicability and potential relatives.
- The court found good cause to deviate due to bonding, rescue/care by the current placement, risk of emotional distress if moved, exposure to Navajo culture, and the placement’s approved adoptive status.
- Nation intervened and challenged the deviation, arguing improper consideration of factors and delay.
- Expert testimony (Dr. Moe) supported staying with the current placement for best interests and potential cultural exposure.
- Court conducted an evidentiary good-cause analysis balancing ICWA presumption with other interests and ultimately affirmed the deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause to deviate from ICWA was shown | Nation asserts guidelines are exclusive | Court may rely on non-guidelines factors | Yes; good cause supported by record |
| Role of bonding and emotional distress in good-cause analysis | Bonding alone cannot establish good cause | Bonding plus risk of emotional harm justifies deviation | Yes; bonding and potential emotional harm supported the ruling |
| Exposure to Navajo and other cultures as a factor | Exposure to Navajo culture is insufficient in non-Navajo home | Current placement can still expose Z. to Navajo culture with help from relatives | Yes; cultural exposure weighed but did not require Navajo-home placement |
| Adoption certification as basis for good cause | Certification cannot trump ICWA | Certification evidence relevant to permanency and not per se dispositive | Yes; certification considered as one factor among many, not controlling |
| Nation’s delay in involvement as a factor | Delay should not penalize keeping child with the current placement | Delay contributed to continued bonding and justified staying with current placement | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in considering delay as part of the best-interests assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Holyfield v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989) (ICWA presumption favors placement with tribe absent good cause; best interests focus within tribal context)
- In re A-25525, 136 Ariz. 528, 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) (Bonding and emotional harm relevant to good cause; best interests balancing)
- In re Desiree F., 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) ( cited as contrast for ICWA compliance failures (distinguishable))
- In re C.H., 299 Mont. 62, 997 P.2d 776 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2000) (Trauma certainty not required; potential harm supports good cause)
- In re Adoption of F.H., 851 P.2d 1361 (Alaska, 1993) (Best interests and ties to tribe considerations in good-cause analysis)
- In re Bird Head, 331 N.W.2d 791 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1983) (Best interests as a factor in ICWA good-cause determinations)
- Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 210 P.3d 1263 (Arizona Court of Appeals, 2009) (Affirms flexible balancing for best interests within ICWA)