AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the termination of parental rights of Yodell B. (Father) to T.B. (Child), an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation. The Children, Youth, and Families Department (the Department) took custody of Child due to injuries sustained in the care of Colynn B. (Mother) and concerns about her mental health. At that time, Mother was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and Father's whereabouts were unknown. The Department was unable to locate Father for placement considerations. Father was later served with a neglect/abuse petition and developed a treatment plan with the Department, which he failed to fully comply with (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (The Department): Argued that they made active efforts to provide Father with remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), but those efforts were unsuccessful.
• Appellant (Father): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that active efforts were made as required by the ICWA, and thus, the termination of his parental rights was improper (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at the termination of parental rights trial was sufficient to show that the Department complied with the active efforts requirement of 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) of the ICWA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s termination order and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion that the Department did not present clear and convincing evidence of making active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family as required by the ICWA (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge M. Monica Zamora with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the Department's efforts were insufficient under the ICWA's active efforts requirement. The Court determined that the Department took a passive role by placing the burden on Father to locate and obtain services and ensure communication between service providers and the Department. The Court held that the proper standard of proof for determinations under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) is the clear and convincing standard. It concluded that the Department's actions did not meet this standard, particularly noting that active efforts imply a more involved and less passive standard than that of reasonable efforts, and the Department's efforts did not satisfy this requirement (paras 8-28).