State v. Reich-Crabtree
381 P.3d 710
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Child M.H.C. born Sept. 2013; taken into DHS protective custody Nov. 2013; State initially asserted ICWA applicability in the November 2013 petition.
- Mother had a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood at initial proceedings but was not a tribal member until she enrolled in the Cherokee Nation on Feb. 5, 2015. The Cherokee Nation notified DHS the child was eligible for enrollment and sought access to records to complete enrollment.
- A district court initially ruled ICWA inapplicable (Dec. 2013); later procedural events included a vacated default termination of mother’s rights and a reinstated reunification permanency plan (2014–2015).
- Cherokee Nation moved to intervene and moved to transfer the proceeding to tribal court after mother’s enrollment; the district court granted transfer on Nov. 20, 2015, finding the State failed to prove good cause to retain jurisdiction.
- The State and foster mother appealed; the child, mother, DHS, and Cherokee Nation did not oppose transfer. The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal and affirmed the transfer.
Issues
| Issue | State/Foster Mother Argument | Cherokee Nation/Mother/DHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA §1911(b) applies when a child becomes an "Indian child" after the state proceeding began | ICWA should not apply because the child was not an Indian child at the time state proceedings started; OICWA and ICWA restrict application to children who qualify at initiation | ICWA applies prospectively once the record shows the child meets ICWA’s definition (here, upon mother’s enrollment) | Court: ICWA applies prospectively from the date the record supports Indian-child status (no retroactive invalidation) |
| Whether retroactive application of ICWA is required to invalidate prior state orders entered before child met ICWA definition | Retroactive application required to cure prior noncompliance | No retroactive application needed; only prospective compliance once status established | Court: ICWA applies prospectively; prior orders need not be vacated solely because ICWA later became applicable |
| Whether Section 1911(b) transfer must be denied because the case was at an advanced stage when petition to transfer was filed | Transfer should be denied for untimeliness and advanced stage of proceedings | Timeliness is not dispositive; OICWA and precedent allow transfer when child later meets ICWA definition | Court: State failed to prove good cause by clear-and-convincing evidence; timeliness did not justify denial |
| Whether "good cause" existed to retain state court (best interests, bonds, inconvenience) | Change in placement, bonds with foster family, and inconvenience of moving proceedings weigh against transfer | Transfer presumptively appropriate; appellants offered no clear-and-convincing proof of harm or inability of tribal court to determine best interests | Court: State/foster mother failed to meet burden; transfer to Cherokee Nation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., 859 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1993) (standard of review for legal questions)
- In re M.S., 237 P.3d 161 (Okla. 2010) (allocation of burden to prove good cause to retain state jurisdiction and relevant factors)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013) (interpretation of ICWA’s termination provisions and distinctions among ICWA sections)
- Neilson v. Ketchum, 640 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2011) (context on timing and application of ICWA in termination/adoption settings)
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (tribal interests under ICWA and congressional purpose)