People in re A.D. and Tr.D
Citations
- 2017 COA 61
- 413 P.3d 290
Syllabus
Termination of Parental Rights—Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978—Continuing Inquiries. In 2013, the Chaffee County Department of Social Services (Department) initiated a dependency and neglect proceeding involving Tr.D. Respondents denied the child was a member or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe, and the Department represented it had determined the child was not an Indian child. The petition was later withdrawn and the case closed. In 2015, the Department initiated another dependency and neglect proceeding concerning Tr.D. and 6-month-old A.D. after mother and father were arrested on drug charges. The children were placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent and neglected. Treatment plans were developed for both parents, but neither could overcome their addictions. The Department ultimately filed a petition to terminate parental rights and stated that the children were not Indian children. No evidence concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was elicited at the termination hearing. The trial court terminated parental rights and found the provisions of the ICWA did not apply. On appeal, mother argued that the record failed to support the court's ICWA finding because no questions were asked about possible Indian heritage during the proceedings and therefore the Department didn't meet its \continuing inquiry\ duty under the ICWA. The Department argued that the ICWA issue was resolved in the prior case and the trial court satisfied the ICWA requirements in this case because it took judicial notice of its ICWA finding in the previous case. The Department reasoned that because A.D. is a full sibling of Tr.D., the court's previous finding as to Tr.D. must also apply to her. The ICWA required the Department to conduct new inquiries to determine whether the children were Indian children. Because there was no evidence in the record of such inquiries, further proceedings were required. Because the ICWA inquiry may result in the court determining that the ch
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that the plaintiffs challenged the arbitration clause specifically when they alleged that the delegation provision was fraudulent
- finding that the tribal defendants “engaged in conduct outside of Indian lands when they extended loans to the Plaintiffs in Vermont”
- noting that States often authorize private parties to “act as ‘private attorneys general’ to enforce state law”
- finding that tribal defendants in allegedly illegal payday lending scheme “engaged in conduct outside of Indian lands when they extended loans to the Plaintiffs in Vermont”
- finding that similar opt-out provision did not save an arbitration agreement because it “merely put[] plaintiffs in tribal court—the same hostile forum in which they would end up after arbitration.”
- finding that similar opt-out provision did not save an arbitration agreement because it “merely put[] plaintiffs in tribal court—the same hostile forum in which they would end up after arbitration.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.