## Facts

- Birth Mother, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, moved from South Dakota to Utah during pregnancy and arranged an adoption in Utah.
- The child was eligible for tribal enrollment and qualified as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- Birth Mother executed a voluntary relinquishment and consent to adoption and falsely identified another man (her brother-in-law) as the child’s biological father.
- The adoption proceeded without notice to the Tribe.
- The district court terminated Birth Mother’s parental rights and concluded the alleged biological father was not a “parent” under ICWA, allowing the case to proceed without ICWA protections.
- After learning of the proceedings, E.T. (an unwed tribal member alleging biological paternity) sought to participate by filing a motion to intervene, requesting paternity testing, submitting an affidavit asserting paternity and willingness to support and care for the child, and filing objections and a counter-petition; he also filed a paternity notice with the Utah Department of Health.
- The district court denied intervention, reasoning that E.T. was not an ICWA “parent” and did not qualify under Utah adoption statutes.
- The Utah Supreme Court accepted the appeal on certification and issued a fractured decision.

## Issues

1. Whether E.T. qualified as a “parent” under ICWA, including whether paternity had been “acknowledged or established” for purposes of 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9).
2. Whether the district court erred in denying E.T.’s motion to intervene in an adoption proceeding involving an Indian child.
3. What effect, if any, Birth Mother’s admitted deception and related procedural irregularities had on the need for ICWA-compliant proceedings.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the order denying E.T.’s motion to intervene and remanded.
- A majority concluded E.T. was a “parent” under ICWA because his actions sufficed to acknowledge or establish paternity under Utah’s generally applicable paternity law.
- The court held ICWA’s protections applied, requiring E.T. be allowed to participate and the proceeding to continue under ICWA standards.
- The court rejected using Utah’s adoption-specific restrictions to narrow ICWA “parent” status in a way that would defeat ICWA’s federal minimum protections.

## Legal Principles

- Under ICWA, an unwed father is excluded from “parent” status only where paternity has not been “acknowledged or established.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9).
- For ICWA purposes, whether paternity has been “acknowledged or established” may be informed by state paternity law; state adoption rules may not be applied to restrict ICWA’s definition in a manner inconsistent with ICWA’s text and purpose.
- ICWA sets minimum federal standards in Indian child-custody proceedings; state law cannot be used to dilute ICWA’s required protections.
- When a biological father of an Indian child qualifies as an ICWA “parent,” he must be permitted to participate in the proceeding, and ICWA procedural requirements (including tribal notice and other statutory protections) apply.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that E.T.’s prompt, affirmative steps to assert paternity under Utah paternity law made him a “parent” under ICWA, requiring that he be allowed to intervene and that the adoption proceeding proceed on remand under ICWA’s federally mandated protections rather than being foreclosed by state adoption-specific barriers.


E.T. v. R.K.B. (In re Adoption of B.B.), 2017 UT 59, 417 P.3d 1 (Utah 2017)