K. R. C. v. Three Affiliated Tribes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting the parties’ argument that “good cause” to depart from the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) placement preferences is a matter of judicial discretion
• disagreeing in a footnote with a “passing” argument advocating clear and convincing evidence standard, noting that under Oregon law, a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to permanency hearings
• “[W]e would decline to exercise our discretion to review de novo, particu- larly where, as here, the trial court issued extensive factual findings, ORAP 5.40(8)(d)(i), and its decision comports with those findings, ORAP 5.40(8)(d)(ii).”
• “[W]e would decline to exercise our discretion to review de novo, particu- larly where, as here, the trial court issued extensive factual findings, ORAP 5.40(8)(d)(i), and its decision comports with those findings, ORAP 5.40(8)(d)(ii).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).