## Facts

- A child (“Baby Boy C.”) was born in Arizona in March 2004 to a mother who was a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation and a non-Indian father.
- The mother had grown up in a tribal community but, as an adult, no longer participated in the Tribe’s political, social, or religious affairs; her other children were not being raised in a tribal community.
- In April 2004, both biological parents consented in an Arizona court to the child’s adoption by two non-Indian New York residents.
- The mother’s consent acknowledged potential coverage under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), waived ICWA placement preferences, and requested a “good cause” finding to support placement with the adoptive petitioners; the Tribe received notice but did not appear in the Arizona proceeding.
- The adoptive petitioners filed for adoption in New York Family Court, and the Tribe moved to intervene and sought application of ICWA.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA applies to a private-placement adoption of an “Indian child” regardless of the child’s or parents’ cultural or social connections to the Tribe, or whether a court may apply an “existing Indian family” (EIF) exception to avoid ICWA.
2. Whether ICWA grants the Tribe an unconditional right to intervene in an adoption proceeding, and, if not, whether intervention should be allowed under New York’s permissive intervention statute (CPLR 1013).

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed Family Court’s determination that ICWA did not apply based on the EIF doctrine.
- The court declined to recognize the EIF doctrine in New York, holding it conflicts with ICWA’s text and purposes.
- The court held ICWA does not provide a right to intervene as of right in adoption proceedings under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c).
- The court held the Tribe should be allowed to intervene permissively under CPLR 1013 because it had a significant interest in ensuring ICWA’s proper application.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the adoption petition consistent with ICWA, with the Tribe participating as an intervenor.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s definition of “Indian child” turns on tribal membership or eligibility and parentage; it does not require proof that the child is being removed from an “existing Indian family” or Indian cultural setting.
- The EIF doctrine is inconsistent with ICWA’s plain language and congressional purpose to protect tribal interests in Indian children, including in voluntary and interstate adoption contexts.
- Constitutional concerns about rigid application of ICWA are addressed within ICWA through the statutory “good cause” mechanism allowing deviation from placement preferences where justified.
- 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c) grants tribes a right to intervene in foster care placement and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, but not in adoption or preadoptive placement proceedings.
- A tribe may be permitted to intervene under CPLR 1013 where its participation raises common questions and does not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication, particularly to address ICWA compliance and placement preferences under 25 U.S.C. § 1915.

## Conclusion

The court held that ICWA generally governs a private adoption involving an Indian child and rejected the EIF exception as incompatible with the statute; although ICWA did not confer intervention as of right in an adoption, the Tribe was entitled to permissive intervention under New York law, and the case was remanded for ICWA-compliant proceedings.


In re Baby Boy C., 27 A.D.3d 34, 805 N.Y.S.2d 313 (1st Dep’t 2005)