## Facts

- Alexandria P. was an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because her father was an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe.
- At about 17 months old, she was removed from her mother due to substance abuse; the father had an extensive criminal history and prior loss of custody of another child.
- With the tribe’s initial consent, Alexandria was placed with non-Indian foster parents (later recognized as de facto parents) to facilitate reunification with the father, who lived nearby.
- Alexandria lived with the foster parents for about two and a half years, during which she bonded with them and was described as thriving.
- After reunification efforts failed, DCFS, the father, and the tribe sought placement with the father’s extended family in Utah, consistent with ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences favoring extended family.
- The foster parents opposed the transfer, asserting “good cause” to deviate from ICWA preferences based on Alexandria’s bond with them and her best interests.
- The juvenile court ordered transfer to the Utah relatives, reasoning the foster parents had not shown good cause and stating they were required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was a certainty Alexandria would suffer emotional harm from the transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court erred by defining ICWA “good cause” to deviate from adoptive placement preferences as requiring clear and convincing proof that emotional harm from transfer was certain.
2. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to adequately consider the child’s bond with the foster parents and the child’s best interests within the ICWA “good cause” analysis.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the placement order and remanded for a new hearing.
- The court held the juvenile court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring certainty of emotional harm to establish good cause.
- The court held the juvenile court did not adequately consider the child’s bond with the foster parents and the child’s best interests as part of the good-cause determination.
- On remand, the juvenile court was directed to apply the correct standard and evaluate current circumstances, including the child’s attachments and welfare.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA establishes adoptive placement preferences that generally prioritize placement with a child’s extended family, then other members of the tribe, then other Indian families, absent good cause to the contrary.
- “Good cause” to depart from ICWA’s placement preferences does not require proof with certainty that the child will suffer emotional harm if transferred to a preferred placement.
- In determining good cause, a court must consider the child’s bond with current caregivers and the child’s best interests among the relevant factors; failure to do so is legal error.
- The good-cause inquiry must be applied to the child’s current circumstances, not through an artificially heightened burden that effectively forecloses individualized assessment.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed because the juvenile court elevated ICWA’s good-cause standard by demanding certainty of emotional harm and did not sufficiently evaluate bonding and best interests; the case was remanded for a new hearing under the correct standard based on current circumstances.


In re Alexandria P., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1322 (Ct. App. 2014)