The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent IN the INTEREST OF Minor Children: K.C. and L.C. v. K.C. and L.C., Respondents/Cross-Petitioners and Concerning D.C.
487 P.3d 263
Colo.2021Background
- Twins K.C. and L.C. born prematurely tested positive for marijuana; Logan County DHS obtained temporary custody and filed dependency/neglect petitions.
- Father T.B. reported Chickasaw ancestry (he was not enrolled); the Department sent ICWA notices to the Chickasaw Nation, which replied that the children were not currently "Indian children" but were eligible for citizenship if a parent or the children enrolled.
- The Department did not assist parents with tribal enrollment; months later it moved to terminate parental rights based on parental unfitness and failure to complete treatment plans.
- At the termination hearing the court found ICWA did not apply (children not Indian children) after confirming parents had not enrolled; it terminated parental rights under state standards.
- The court of appeals vacated the termination judgment and ordered the trial court to hold an "enrollment hearing" to decide whether enrolling the children in the Chickasaw Nation would be in their best interests and to direct the Department to assist enrollment if so.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, reinstating the district court's termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA requires a state court-held tribal enrollment hearing (to decide best interests of enrolling an eligible-but-not-enrolled child) before terminating parental rights | Mother/GAL: Division erred; an enrollment hearing is necessary when a tribe signals interest to ensure ICWA protections and to effectuate reunification efforts | Department/Nation: No statutory basis for an enrollment hearing; ICWA applies only to "Indian children" as defined and tribal membership determinations lie exclusively with the tribe | Court: No. ICWA does not require an enrollment hearing for children who are not "Indian children" under the statute; such a requirement would conflict with tribal authority and must come from Congress or statute |
| Whether a court may order the Department to enroll children in a tribe over a parent's objection | GAL/mother: Department's failure to assist enrollment violated its reasonable-efforts duty and ICWA-related protections | Department: Issue not properly before court here (neither parent objected); as a general matter, no statutory obligation exists to enroll children or compel enrollment over parental objection | Court: Not reached as framed; in any event, neither federal nor Colorado law imposes an obligation on the Department to enroll or to assist enrollment as a legal requirement (though assistance can be a permissible or advisable practice) |
| Whether the Department had to assist parents in enrolling eligible children as part of its "reasonable efforts"/"active efforts" duties | Mother: Assisting with enrollment would facilitate reunification and thus was required by reasonable efforts and ICWA policy | Department: Federal "active efforts" and state "reasonable efforts" do not encompass a duty to assist with tribal enrollment; regulations reject adding enrollment assistance as required active efforts | Court: "Active efforts" and Colorado reasonable-efforts statutes do not legally require enrollment assistance; the Department satisfied its inquiry/notice duties and reasonable-efforts here; assistance may be a best practice but is not mandated |
| Whether the appellate division should have ordered a limited remand rather than vacating the termination judgment | GAL/mother: procedural errors justify remand for enrollment-related proceedings | Department: division erred to vacate judgment when statutory requirements were met | Court: Did not reach limited-remand question because reversal of the division was warranted on the main legal errors; reversed the court of appeals and reinstated district court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (purpose of ICWA and concern about removals of Indian children)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (tribal authority to define membership is central and exclusive)
- Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1985) (canons of construction in Indian law reflect unique federal–tribal trust relationship)
- B.H. v. People in Interest of X.H., 138 P.3d 299 (Colo. 2006) (interpretive principles for statutes involving Indian law)
- In re M.G., 465 P.3d 120 (Colo. App. 2020) (state court need not apply ICWA standards once child is shown not to be an "Indian child")