## Facts

- F.H. was born February 24, 1990; her mother (E.P.D.) had a very high blood alcohol level at birth, and the child faced medical risks associated with prenatal alcohol exposure.
- Alaska’s child welfare agency (DFYS) took custody shortly after birth due to the mother’s homelessness and intoxication at delivery.
- F.H. experienced multiple foster placements; she lived with the Hartleys (non-Indian foster parents) from June 1990 to June 1991 and developed a strong attachment to them.
- E.P.D., a member of the Native Village of Noatak, considered relinquishing to several potential caretakers, including her cousin Mary Penn and the Hartleys.
- Mary Penn qualified as an “extended family member” and thus a first-preference adoptive placement under ICWA; DFYS completed a favorable home study and supported placement with Penn, although F.H. had never lived with her.
- Two days before a scheduled termination trial in a related child-protection case, E.P.D. executed documents relinquishing parental rights specifically to the Hartleys, conditioned on (1) their adoption, (2) the child’s retention of inheritance rights from E.P.D., and (3) continued contact/visitation for E.P.D. and her family.
- At the adoption hearing, E.P.D. testified she did not plan to return to, or maintain ties with, the tribal community.
- Guardians ad litem supported adoption by the Hartleys and opined that disrupting the established bond would be detrimental to F.H.

## Issues

1. Whether “good cause” under 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permitted deviation from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences to approve adoption by non-Indian foster parents over a preferred extended-family placement.
2. Whether the mother’s informed, conditional relinquishment favoring the foster parents and the child’s attachment and risk of harm from removal could support a “good cause” finding within ICWA.
3. How a child’s welfare considerations function within ICWA’s placement framework once a court evaluates “good cause.”

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order granting the Hartleys’ adoption petition.
- The court held that “good cause” existed to depart from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences despite the availability of a qualifying extended-family placement.
- The court approved the trial court’s reliance on (1) the mother’s expressed placement preference, (2) evidence of the child’s established bond and likely harm from disruption, and (3) the child’s needs and history of instability as relevant to “good cause.”
- The adoption judgment remained in place, and the related child-protection proceedings were dismissed following finalization of the adoption.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are presumptive but may be overcome “for good cause shown.”
- A “good cause” determination is fact-specific and may be informed by federal guidelines as persuasive authority, even if not binding.
- A biological parent’s informed preference regarding adoptive placement can be a significant factor supporting “good cause” to deviate from ICWA preferences.
- Evidence that an Indian child has formed a strong attachment to a non-preferred placement, and that removal would likely cause serious emotional harm, may support “good cause,” particularly where the child has special needs or a history of multiple placements.
- Once “good cause” is established, the court may give substantial weight to the child’s welfare in selecting the adoptive placement, while still recognizing ICWA’s purposes.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld an adoption by non-Indian foster parents after concluding that the mother’s informed relinquishment favoring that placement, combined with the child’s strong bond and the risk of harm from another move, constituted “good cause” to depart from ICWA’s statutory placement preferences.


In re Adoption of F.H., 851 P.2d 1361 (Alaska 1993)