## Facts

- A Cherokee Nation member gave birth in Oklahoma to a child qualifying as an “Indian child” under federal law due to the child’s connection to the Cherokee Nation.
- Through an adoption agency, the mother selected non-Indian prospective adoptive parents residing in Florida.
- Shortly after birth, the prospective adoptive parents filed an adoption-expense motion in an Oklahoma court, invoking Oklahoma jurisdiction.
- The prospective adoptive parents also pursued an adoption in Florida, where the mother traveled with the child.
- A Florida court terminated the mother’s parental rights (and those of any father) and treated the matter as a voluntary adoption, concluding tribal notice was unnecessary and finding good cause to depart from federal placement preferences.
- The Cherokee Nation received notice nearly a month after the Florida termination order and sought to intervene in Florida, while also seeking relief in Oklahoma.
- In Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation sought to prevent the Oklahoma ICPC administrator (Michael Nomura) from approving the child’s interstate transfer to Florida without compliance with Indian-child-welfare requirements.
- The ICPC administrator sought declaratory relief in Oklahoma on whether Oklahoma’s Indian-child-welfare statute applied and whether tribal notice was required.
- The Oklahoma district court ruled the matter was a covered child-custody proceeding; held federal and Oklahoma Indian-child-welfare laws applied; and concluded the ICPC administrator had a duty to ensure compliance (including tribal notice) before approving interstate placement.
- The adoption agency appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Oklahoma’s Indian-child-welfare statute applies to voluntary as well as involuntary adoptions involving an Indian child.
2. Whether Oklahoma’s statute is invalid or preempted because it affords protections in voluntary proceedings beyond those asserted to be required by federal law.
3. Whether the Oklahoma ICPC administrator must require compliance with federal and Oklahoma Indian-child-welfare requirements before approving an interstate placement.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- Oklahoma’s Indian-child-welfare statute applies to both voluntary and involuntary child-custody proceedings involving Indian children.
- The Oklahoma statute is not preempted by federal law because it supplements federal minimum protections rather than diminishing them.
- The adoption qualified as a child-custody proceeding triggering Indian-child-welfare requirements.
- The ICPC administrator had authority and a duty to withhold approval of the interstate placement unless and until applicable federal and Oklahoma Indian-child-welfare requirements were satisfied.
- Oklahoma was not required to treat the Florida court’s characterization of the proceeding as voluntary and ICWA-exempt as controlling for Oklahoma’s ICPC approval obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Indian-child-welfare law sets minimum safeguards; a state may provide additional protections to Indian children and tribes so long as it does not reduce federal rights.
- State Indian-child-welfare provisions may apply to voluntary adoptions when the state has chosen to extend protections beyond the federal floor.
- An adoption involving an Indian child can constitute a covered child-custody proceeding that triggers statutory requirements such as tribal notice and participation.
- Under the ICPC, officials in the sending state must ensure an interstate placement complies with applicable laws, including federal and state Indian-child-welfare requirements.
- A receiving state’s prior orders do not obligate the sending state to approve an ICPC transfer when the sending state concludes required Indian-child-welfare protections were not satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Oklahoma’s Indian-child-welfare statute validly extends protections to voluntary Indian-child adoptions and that the Oklahoma ICPC administrator must require compliance with federal and Oklahoma Indian-child-welfare requirements before approving interstate placement, notwithstanding a contrary characterization in another state’s proceedings.


Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, 160 P.3d 967 (Okla. 2007)