*1 the date on which gust 1980 as in 1982. See claimed nervous breakdown Thus, began run. periods I, 978. November limitations 718 P.2d at On Fox disability as a applied for benefits Board must determine wheth- 1982 she remand the February, 1982 breakdown. her result of er: her claimed as listed this breakdown She of the claim was notified Alascom dispute that she does not “injury.” Fox it of the date became within prior stress experienced work-related had compensable injury “apparent that a may While it be that

to the breakdown. sustained,” Sullivan, 518 been ha[d] disability benefits she could have claimed and/or, 761; P.2d at prior to experienced had for the stress she (b) “the board to] excuse[ ] [has breakdown, penal- she cannot be her 1982 ground give the failure on the notice] [to absorbing of her earlier the costs ized satisfactory reason notice that for some stress, Compensation seeking Workers’ given,” could not be or that failure culminated only that stress benefits when give pursu- excused notice is otherwise employee An need not in a breakdown. 23.30.100(d).10 provisions to the of AS ant pain in disability every pang claim superior court is RE- The decision of the for a more disability benefits order to claim proceed- REMANDED for VERSED and Thus, injury. the relevant fully developed ings opinion. consistent with filing her break- periods limitations begin did not to run claim down-related began to suffer from work-relat-

when Fox Rather, periods the limitations

ed stress. the date she became to run as of

started breakdown.

aware of work-related

Thus, superior erred hold that the court we affirming the Board’s decision from preclude it Fox

extent would SERVICES, INC., related to seeking compensation for losses CATHOLIC SOCIAL S.G., Appellants, the 1982 breakdown.8 C.G. disability claim for benefits Fox filed her within well on November Inlet Tribal and Cook C.A.A. period, whether the applicable limitations Council, Appellees. relating to latent or period is that relevant S-2879. However, injuries. it cannot be traditional Fox from the record whether ascertained Supreme of Alaska. Court employer of her claim within notified her 30-day period, or whether applicable Dec. 1989. excuse exist which would circumstances 30-day period.9 Nei-

compliance with the superior court ad- nor the

ther Board issues, they Au- viewed

dressed these (1) agent employ- employer, an if the Board and The decisions of the 8. place charge they pre- the business in the er in the extent that would are affirmed to occurred, injury had claiming disability or the carrier benefits for where the from clude Fox causing knowledge injury and the or death as a result of the stress losses incurred employer carrier extended 1980 medical leave her to take the board determines that give injury, prejudiced the Board ruled on failure to As to that absence. has not been periods notice; that the limitations substantial evidence August to run in on the would have started excuses the failure if the board satisfactory ground reason no- for some given; note 10. tice could not infra objection raised to the failure is unless 23.30.100(d) hearing reads: 10. Alaska Statute of a first the board at the before inju- respect compensation in (d) claim for ry give not bar a notice does Failure death. chapter under this claim *2 1160

OPINION PER CURIAM. in this case is presented issue

The sole Child Welfare whether under the Indian tribe is entitled to Act1 an Indian child’s proceeding voluntary for termi- notice of a this parental rights. We answer nation of negative. Congress explic- question in the in itly rights intervention to tribes granted involuntary proceedings, but termination voluntary pro- did not do so ceedings. Compare 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a) (West 1983). 25 U.S.C.A. 1913 legislative history of the Act demon- The a considered choice strates that this was on Congress. Witnesses testified both question notice should sides of whether required.2 Additionally, the Bureau of interpretative guidelines Indian Affairs of our view: “The confirm the correctness right Act mandates a tribal of notice and involuntary proceedings intervention but Department ones.” Interior, Affairs, Bureau of Indian Guide- Courts; lines for State Indian Child Custo- Rhodes, Flint, Hartig, Nor- Robert B. Fed.Reg. dy Proceedings, at man, Edwards, Anchorage, for Mahoney & (1979). appellants. appellees’ pro- The contention that due Gershel, Eyerly, and Michael Tred Carol requires cess tribal notice lacks merit. Daniel, Corp., Legal Services Shar- Alaska Act, enacting the Indian Child Welfare Gleason, Reese, Volland, Anchor- Rice & Congress has created and defined both trib- age, appellee for C.A.A. adoption pro- al and termination Miller, Chambers, Sonosky, Lloyd Benton ceedings. provisions The of the Act which Miller, Anchorage, appellee Sachse & give right tribes the to notice of certain Cook Inlet Tribal Council. others, proceedings not to- define the scope rights. The Act strikes a tribal Jr., McCarthy, Deputy Public Philip J. conflicting balance the sometimes between McGee, Advocate, Advocate, Brant Public children, parents, of Indian Indian interests Anchorage, guardian ad litem. say and their We are unable to tribes. Snow, Gen., Atty. D. Rebecca Asst. Fair- Congress stopped the fact short of Schaible, Gen., banks, Atty. Berg Grace granting to notice in volun- Curiae, Juneau, for Amicus State Alas- tary termination is fundamen- ka, Dept, of Health and Social Services. tally unfair. C.J., MATTHEWS, judgment Before The is REVERSED RABINOWITZ, BURKE, proceed- further COMPTON case is REMANDED for MOORE, ings. JJ. (1978); (2) (West 1983). Cong., 2d Sess. 62-65 fairs, U.S.C.A. 95th §§ 1901-1963 Fales, Mary Jane North American Center on Issac, testimony Missis- 2. Chief Calvin 141-148; Mary Adoption, Id. at Sister Indians, sippi in Indian Child Band of Choctaw Alaska, Clare, Catholic Social Services of Id. Hearings Act The Sub- 1978: Welfare Before 80-90. committee on Indian and Public Lands Affairs Comm, on Interior and Insular the House Af-

H61 Justice, WITZ, dissenting. represented by RABINO or her to be her own attorney. The Cook Inlet Tribal Council Indian Act The Child Welfare (CITC) proceed- received no notice of the (ICWA) explicitly grants right to tribes the ings any from source and so did not inter- proceeding intervene State vene. the termination of *3 1911(c). Indian child. 25 This relinquishment hearing, U.S.C. At the June 30 § is attorney to intervene fundamental to the the for Catholic Services misin- purpose, upon ICWA’s and confers upon signature formed CAA that her CAA implicit right any proceeding an to notice of only relinquish- had ten to revoke her scope. within the Act’s To hold otherwise parental rights.2 ment of CMF remained to I is misread the Act. therefore dissent. physical custody days; CAA’s eleven CAA physically then surrendered to CMF Catho- I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. Services, lic under the mistaken belief longer she no relinquish- could revoke her of the record Review reveals the follow- parental rights. ment of superior The ing compelling facts. court terminating entered a final decree August mother, In 1980 an Athabascan 15, parental CAA’s July CAA, gave birth to a July CMF. In Subsequently, began put CAA to her life approached 1985 CAA Catholic Social Ser- together. back She received (Catholic Services) assistance help vices with alco- drinking problem, with her in Septem- parenting holism and skills. CAA there- stopped drinking began ber 1986 out- relinquished custody after of a second patient early treatment. child, M,1 1986 CAA April and in 1986 allowed Catho- learned of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council place lic to Services CMF foster care. through advertisement; a 1986, television she however, May CAA elected not to counseling contacted the and for CMF, relinquish parental rights to regaining custody assistance in of CMF. CMF was returned to her. In June 1986 CAA informed Catholic Services that she On March Mr. peti- and Mrs. G again “give up” had decided to CMF. CAA CMF, adopt tioned filing petition to their asked Catholic Services to remove CMF relinquishment proceeding the rather than possible.” from her home “as soon as commencing independent adoption an ac- drinking heavily CAA was at this time and tion. CAA filed a Revocation of Relin- subjected physical had her child to abuse. quishment day. the same CITC moved to 7, adoption proceeding May intervene in the appeared

On June 1986 CAA before a and moved to set aside the termination probate voluntary relinquish- master in a pursuant decree to 25 U.S.C. 1914. CAA proceeding. ment CAA indicated that she grounds raised CITC numerous for set- adopted by wanted CMF to be the Cauca- ting including the aside decree Catholic (Mr. couple sian with whom CMF lives now provide Services’ failure to notice of the G). request, and Mrs. At Catholic Service’s to the child’s tribe. signed Relinquishment a CAA of Parental superior Thereafter court issued a Rights. Catholic Services did not offer vacating Memorandum Order and Decision adoption CAA the alternative consent relinquishment CAA’s form; explain neither did Catholic Services notify for Catholic Services’ failure to to CAA that Catholic Services would be- of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council legal come CMF’s custodian once a decree relinquishment proceeding. holding In so terminating parental rights CAA’s was en- part: court stated in Finally, tered. Catholic Services did not provid- inform of the as CAA existence of her tribal The tribe’s to intervene Council, organization, the Cook Inlet Tribal ed the statute would be hollow and relinquishment appeal. 1. CAA’s of M is not on final decree of termination. See 25 U.S.C. J.R.S., 1913(c); 690 P.2d In Matter of 2. CAAwas in fact entitled to revoke her relin- (Alaska 1984). entry quishment prior of a by usurping the Congressional scheme was not practical effect if there

without in the Indian child. equal court to ensure interest duty imposed upon the tribe’s — fact, —, had been notified 109 S.Ct. at 1610 the tribe U.S. Id. respond opportunity in the has an interest (“[T]he tribe involuntary termination required in an parity is on a is distinct from but proceeding. (quoting In parents.”) re interest P.2d Adoption Halloway, 732 969- appeal followed. This (Utah 1986)); see also at —, (“Congress at 1609 S.Ct. U.S. TRIBE’S TO INTER- II. THE RIGHT [placements of Indi subject determined UNDER VENTION children non-Indian homes] erroneously opinion the con- my *4 jurisdictional provisions, other ICWA’s and grant Congress not tribes that did cludes- parents in consented even cases where the voluntary in termi- right to intervene the adoption, going concerns to an because of of 25 proceedings. The text U.S.C. nation parents.”). beyond the wishes of individual 1911(c) simply supportive of the is not § reading: court’s NOTICE. III. THE TRIBE’S RIGHT TO proceeding for any In State court the upon thus tribes an The ICWA confers of, placement care or termination foster right any point at unqualified to intervene to, rights Indian the parental an any proceeding. State court termination in and custodian of the child the Indian not, however, provide The ICWA does an right child’s tribe shall have a to Indian every unqualified right tribal to notice proceeding. any point at in the intervene Rather, 1912(a) proceeding. State while supplied.) § (Emphasis specific notice in sets criteria for tribal rationale, Contrary apparent to the court’s involuntary is proceedings,3 the statute si ground right to is not the tribe’s intervene regarding lent notice to tribes when the Rather, right the upon ed to notice. tribe proceed court deems the termination State any point in right any to intervene at has a ing voluntary. we must look Therefore to parents’ of the proceeding regardless State purpose of to the the statute ascertain right is This to intervene abso consent. Congress Holyfield, intended. what lute, jurisdic part an of the instrumental Cf. — at —, (quoting U.S. 109 at 1606 S.Ct. heart of the tional scheme the “[a]t 399, Pelzer, 403, 312 U.S. United States Mississippi Band Choctaw In ICWA.” — 659, 661, (1941)). L.Ed. 913 As U.S. —, —, 61 S.Ct. 85 Holyfield, 109 dians v. purpose of the is no less than 1597, 1601, 29, (1989). the ICWA to 104 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. identity,41 their voluntary pro help preserve Indian tribes deny right To to defeat that a to notice is ceedings parents is to allow the conclude "tribal 1912(a) rights parental proceeding provides: or termination of § 3. 25 U.S.C. days be held ten shall until at least after Notice; pro- time commencement of receipt by parent of notice or Indian the cus- ceedings; preparation additional time for Secretary: and the the Provid- todian tribe or involuntary proceeding in a State ed, parent court, or That the or Indian custodian the where the court knows or has to shall, up upon granted request, be tribe twenty to that an Indian child is involved the know party of, prepare seeking days placement additional to such the care or foster to, proceeding. parental rights an Indian notify parent shall or Indian custodi- child the — at —, E.g., Holyfield, S.Ct. tribe, U.S. 109 by registered Indian an and the child’s ("The protect ICWA ‘seeks to the 1602 thus ... requested, receipt return of the mail with of the Indian child as Indian the proceedings pending and of their in- community tribe Indian identity If the location of the tervention. or ”) society.’ retaining (quoting its children in its parent and the tribe or Indian custodian can- 95-1386, (1978)) determined, H.R.Rep. p. given No. 23 U.S.Code 7545; shall be not be such notice 1978, 7530, manner, Cong. pp. & Admin.News 25 Secretary in who shall the like ("there 1901(3) that no resource is receipt provide U.S.C. is § to have fifteen after the integ vital to the existence requisite parent to Indian more continued notice custo- children”). rity placement of Indian tribes than their and the tribe. No foster care dian

H63 is no illusory unless the tribe prove in the fundamen necessarily implicit tribe’s proceeding. voluntary termination tice of a right under intervention unqualified tal 1911(c).5 sum, is in the Indian child’s best “[i]t relationship its tribe interest no-right deduces a tribal The court protected.” at — n. U.S. proceedings from testi notice In re 24, (quoting at 1609 n. 109 S.Ct. Subcommittee. mony before a House Action Appeal County in Pima Juvenile responded to concerns my opinion Congress S-903, 130 Ariz. 187, No. 635 P.2d through the parental privacy expressed for denied, (App.1981), cert. 455 U.S. con 25 U.S.C. provision of (1982)). The L.Ed.2d 875 102 S.Ct. participation placement templates tribal opinion today disenfranchises court’s particular responsive child the Indian disinherits7 1915(c) requires the child.6 needs of form, paper consent and a pieces two —a preferences, con to follow tribe-set courts parent certificate judge’s state of the Indian sidering preference “fully consequences understood” apply “[wjhere appropriate,” and parent 1913(a). I would consent. U.S.C. § “giv[ing] preferences while ing the tribe’s readily so circumvent read the ICWA to be requests for ano weight” affirm the court’s ed. I would *5 a balance be 1915 thus strikes nymity. ruling.8 anonymity and the tribe’s tween by mechanism by providing a interests re parents may of be privacy protect the tribe’s

spected while In the and its children is served.

itself of J.R.S., 10, 14-15,

Matter P.2d 18-19

(Alaska 1984). my powers view by of 1911 and 1915 virtue §§ 1911(a), (b) (iii) ap- (detailing or an Indian foster home licensed

5. See also 25 U.S.C. licensing by proved non-Indian custody- an authorized jurisdiction to exercise tribes’ authority; or matters). (iv) by approved for children an institution operated by an Indian an Indian tribe or organization provides part: 6. 25 U.S.C. program which has a suitable (a) placements; preferences Adoptive child’s needs. meet the Indian any adoptive placement of an Indian (c)Tribal order resolution different law, preference shall be under State a child considered; personal preference preference; good given, cause to in the absence application preferences anonymity in (1) contrary, placement a member to a with placement a under subsection In the case of family; section, mem- extended other (b) of the child’s child’s if the Indian tribe; pref- child’s other bers of the Indian order of shall establish a different resolution, agency by or court ef- erence Indian families. placement (b) fecting shall follow such order preadoptive placements; care or Foster long placement is the least restrictive criteria; so as the preferences setting particular needs of appropriate to the accepted prea- Any foster care or (b) provided of this in subsection placed doptive placement in the least shall be preference appropriate, the Where section. approximates setting a which most restrictive parent shall be considered: Indian child or the Provided, needs, any, special family if and in which his consenting parent evi- where a That placed may also be met. The child shall be anonymity, the court or a desire for dences agency proximity to his or her reasonable within give weight to such desire shall home, taking any special account needs into preferences. applying the preadop- foster care or of the child. cultural, given, preference potential placement, a shall tive to the child's I refer contrary, Compare good to a cause to the inheritance. the absence material ("place at 1609 n. 24 109 S.Ct. placement U.S. at — n. with— deprive[ the child ] homes (i) in non-Indian ments of the Indian child’s extended A member heritage”) (quot cultural her tribal and of his or ing family; 95-597, (1977)) p. Rep. No. Senate licensed, (ii) approved, or home a foster tribe; specified the Indian child’s HAGANS, GIBBS, BROWN & Corporation,

Professional

Appellant, BANK

FIRST NATIONAL OF

ANCHORAGE, Appellee.

No. S-2735.

Supreme of Alaska. Court

Dec. *6 13.11.045(1)(posture adopted AS process, right children for tribes have a due to notice of succession). interstate under both the Alaska and United States Constitutions. analysis 8. Given this §§of 1911 and I find unnecessary argument it to address CAA's