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 custody of a child, Andrea Lynn M., who is an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation. The Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) filed an abuse and neglect petition in 1996, alleging that the child had been sexually abused. Both parents, also enrolled members of the Navajo Nation, were living in Albuquerque at the time. The child was placed in the legal custody of CYFD and later with a Native American foster family (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Children's Court, June 1996: The court placed the child in the legal custody of CYFD, recognizing the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and ordering placement in a Navajo foster home (para 2).
• Children's Court, September 1996: A stipulated judgment awarded legal custody of the child to CYFD for two years (para 2).
• Children's Court, June 1997: The Navajo Nation was granted the right to intervene in the proceedings under ICWA (para 3).
• Children's Court, August 1998: The Navajo Nation filed a motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Navajo Nation Family Court, which was initially declined by the children's court (para 4).
• Children's Court, February 1999: The court granted the motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Navajo Nation Family Court, despite the father's objection (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the transfer of jurisdiction was improper under ICWA's transfer provision (25 U.S.C. § 1911(b)) because he objected to the transfer and claimed that good cause existed for the children's court to retain jurisdiction. He expressed concerns about the enforcement of his visitation rights and the potential custody decisions by the Navajo Nation Family Court (para 5).
• Respondent (CYFD): Supported the transfer of jurisdiction, citing the Navajo Nation's family treatment plan and the best interests of the child (para 5).
• Intervenor (Navajo Nation): Asserted its right to jurisdiction under ICWA, emphasizing the importance of tribal affiliation and the child's cultural heritage (paras 3, 8-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the transfer of jurisdiction to the Navajo Nation Family Court was proper under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), given the father's objection and the absence of evidence regarding the child's domicile or residence (paras 1, 6-7).
• Whether the children's court acted within its discretion in transferring jurisdiction based on the best interests of the child and the intent of ICWA (paras 8-10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the children's court's decision to transfer jurisdiction to the Navajo Nation Family Court (para 17).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Bosson and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• The court found that the record lacked evidence regarding the child's domicile or residence, which is essential for determining the applicability of ICWA's transfer provision under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b). In the absence of such evidence, the appellate court presumed the correctness of the children's court's decision (paras 6-7).
• The transfer aligned with ICWA's intent to protect the best interests of Indian children and promote the stability of Indian tribes. The child's parents were enrolled members of the Navajo Nation, and the transfer supported the tribe's interest in the child's upbringing within her cultural heritage (paras 8-10).
• The court emphasized that the children's court acted in the child's best interests, considering the parents' proximity to the Navajo Nation and the tribe's treatment plan. The transfer was not an attempt to divest the children's court of jurisdiction but a reasoned decision based on changed circumstances (paras 10-15).
• The father's objection under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) was deemed insufficient to override the transfer, as the provision applies only when the child is domiciled or residing outside the reservation, which was not established in this case (paras 12-13).
• The court declined to consider the applicability of NMSA 1978, § 32A-1-9(D), which bars transfers over a parent's objection, as it was raised for the first time on appeal (para 16).