ILNews

Justices asked to revisit Indian family law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At least one Indiana Court of Appeals judge believes the state’s highest court should revisit how it applies a three-decade old statute to tribal Indian family adoption issues inside Indiana.

Ruling today on the case of In Re The Adoption of D.C. v. J.C. and A.C., No. 49A02-0909-CV-862, the panel unanimously affirmed a Marion County probate judge’s decision to allow a stepfather to adopt an 11-year-old boy who’d lived with him since birth.

The case presented a family law issue about the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901-1963 (1982), which is aimed at protecting the interests of tribal children and promoting stability and security to those tribes and families by minimizing their removal from those environments.

Stepfather J.C. had petitioned Marion Superior Court to adopt D.C., who’d been living with him since birth in 1998 after the mother S.C. had separated from his biological father. Mother and stepfather had custody of the child until the mother’s death in 2005. A few months before that, stepfather had obtained S.C.’s notarized consent to adopt D.C. Stepfather later remarried and his new wife joined the petition, arguing that biological father’s consent wasn’t needed under Indiana state law where they lived because the man hadn’t communicated or provided support significantly through the years.

But biological father contested D.C.’s adoption under ICWA, arguing the law should be applied because he was a member of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, an older son now living with him had enrolled in that tribe, and D.C. would be eligible for enrollment at some point. Another elder child was originally part of this case, but at age 15 that child went to live with biological father and was removed as part of the petition.

Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found ICWA to be inapplicable because there was no “removal” from custody within an Indian family as contemplated by the law, and that the Indiana Supreme Court has found it applies when a tribal Indian child is being removed from an existing Indian environment.

The Court of Appeals found that it was in the child’s best interests to stay with stepfather in Indiana, since he’d cared for D.C. without interruption for the 11 years before this adoption matter. In addition, the court noted that biological father had not objected to custody and had extremely limited contact while accumulating tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support payments. The appellate judges also found biological father’s adoption consent wasn’t required.

Significantly, though, the appellate court declined to accept biological father’s invitation to go against 1988 Indiana Supreme Court precedent in analyzing and evaluating the ICWA application. More than 20 years ago in Matter of Adoption of T.R.M., 525 N.E. 2d 298, 303 (Ind. 1988), Indiana joined other states in how it applies that act to Indian children being removed from their existing environments.

While agreeing with the majority, Judge Michael Barnes wrote a concurring opinion that invited the state’s justices to do exactly that and join more recent national trends in applying the law. In the past decade courts, including those in Kansas and Oklahoma, have overruled the previous ruling that they and Indiana had originally based their applications on.

“In fact, the validity of the existing Indian family doctrine has repeatedly been called into question, and many courts have now abandoned the doctrine,” Judge Barnes wrote. “We do not have the authority to overrule our supreme court, and we must apply the existing Indian family doctrine in this case. However, given the controversy surrounding the existing Indian family doctrine, I encourage our supreme court to revisit its applicability in Indiana.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT