R.B. v. C.W.
186 Wash. 2d 828
| Wash. | 2016Background
- T.A.W., born 2007, is an "Indian child" (mother C.B. is an enrolled Shoalwater Bay Tribe member); biological father C.W. is non‑Indian. Mother later married R.B., who sought to adopt T.A.W.
- C.B. and R.B. petitioned to terminate C.W.’s parental rights and to allow R.B. to adopt; trial court found ICWA/WICWA applied, found elements met beyond a reasonable doubt, found C.W. abandoned the child, and terminated his rights.
- C.W. had a history of methamphetamine addiction, limited contact with the child after infancy, domestic‑violence incidents, and lengthy incarcerations; he last saw the child in 2009 and was incarcerated during the termination trial.
- On appeal, C.W. (for first time) argued ICWA/WICWA required "active efforts" before termination; Court of Appeals held ICWA/WICWA apply whenever an Indian child is involved and that active efforts are required; it rejected an abandonment exception under WICWA.
- Washington Supreme Court affirmed: held ICWA and WICWA apply regardless of the parents’ Indian status, apply to stepparent adoptions, and require private petitioners to demonstrate "active efforts" were made; WICWA contains no abandonment exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.B./R.B.) | Defendant's Argument (C.W.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICWA/WICWA apply when the parent whose rights are terminated is non‑Indian? | ICWA/WICWA should not protect non‑Indian parents; divorce ended Indian family so acts shouldn’t apply. | Acts apply whenever an Indian child is subject to a child‑custody proceeding. | Held: Acts apply based on the child’s Indian status, not the parents’. |
| Do ICWA/WICWA apply to stepparent adoptions? | Stepparent adoptions fall outside ICWA/WICWA scope when terminating a non‑Indian parent. | Adoption/termination are child‑custody proceedings covered by the acts. | Held: Stepparent adoptions are covered; no implied exception. |
| Do ICWA/WICWA active‑efforts requirements apply to privately initiated terminations? | Private parties shouldn’t be required to provide active efforts; provision aimed at state action. | Active efforts language uses "any party," so it applies to private petitioners too. | Held: Any party seeking termination must show active efforts; WICWA expressly covers private petitioners. |
| Does an "abandonment" or "existing Indian family" exception bar active‑efforts in this case (per Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl)? | Adoptive Couple supports an abandonment exception; C.W. abandoned the child so active‑efforts need not apply. | Adoptive Couple is factually distinguishable; under Washington law and WICWA, no abandonment exception applies. | Held: Adoptive Couple is distinguishable; WICWA contains no abandonment exception and overrules the existing Indian family doctrine for Washington cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting ICWA’s scope and recognizing an abandonment‑type exception under facts where father never had custody)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA enacted to prevent unwarranted removal of Indian children and preserve tribal relations)
- In re Adoption of Crews, 118 Wn.2d 561 (1992) (Washington case adopting the existing Indian family doctrine; overruled to the extent inconsistent with WICWA)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental liberty interest in child custody)
- In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d 392 (1984) (noting gravity of terminating parental rights and standard of review)