## Facts

- Baby Boy L. was born in Wichita, Kansas, on January 29, 1981, to an unmarried non-Indian mother (“Miss L.”) and a putative father, Carmon Perciado, an enrolled Kiowa tribal member.
- The child was eligible for enrollment in the Kiowa Tribe.
- On the day of birth, Miss L. executed a written consent to adoption that was expressly limited to a named non-Indian adoptive couple, who immediately petitioned for adoption and received temporary custody.
- Perciado, then incarcerated, received personal notice and later opposed the adoption; the paternal grandparents and the Kiowa Tribe also opposed and sought application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- The Kiowa Tribe sought to intervene; the trial court denied intervention, ruled ICWA inapplicable, found Perciado unfit under Kansas law, and entered a decree of adoption for the adoptive couple.
- Miss L. testified she would revoke her consent and reclaim custody if the child were placed with anyone other than the specific adoptive couple, including Perciado’s family or other Indian placements.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA applies to a voluntary adoption involving a non-Indian mother and an Indian putative father when the child has never lived in an Indian home or been in the father’s custody.
2. If ICWA does not apply, whether the adoption was valid under Kansas law, including consent and the father’s parental status/fitness.
3. Whether denying the Kiowa Tribe’s motion to intervene required reversal.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the adoption decree.
- The court held ICWA did not apply because the proceeding did not involve removal of the child from an existing Indian family or Indian home and the child had never been in the putative father’s care or custody.
- The court upheld the adoption under Kansas law, including the validity of the mother’s consent and the determination that the father was unfit.
- The court held any error in denying tribal intervention was harmless because the mother would revoke consent and retake custody if the specified adoption did not occur.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s minimum federal standards address removal of Indian children from existing Indian family units and placement decisions that risk breakup of Indian families.
- ICWA does not govern an adoption where there is no existing Indian family relationship from which the child is being removed, even if the child is eligible for tribal membership.
- A trial court error regarding intervention is harmless when, on the record, intervention would not affect the outcome due to a dispositive custodial choice by the legal parent (here, the mother’s stated intent to revoke consent and regain custody if the designated adoption failed).
- When ICWA is inapplicable, state adoption law controls, including assessment of voluntary consent and parental fitness.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a voluntary adoption by non-Indian adoptive parents, concluding ICWA did not apply because the child had never been part of an existing Indian family or the putative father’s custody, and concluding the adoption was valid under Kansas law with any intervention error deemed harmless.


In re Adoption of Baby Boy L., 643 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1982)