## Facts

- Three Indian children (S.E.G., A.L.W., and V.M.G.) were in foster care with non-Indian foster parents (E.C. and C.C.), who petitioned to adopt them.
- The children’s proposed adoptive placement was governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), including adoptive placement preferences in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- The children’s tribe, the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa, opposed the adoption placement outside ICWA’s preference hierarchy.
- The trial court found “good cause” to deviate from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences, citing (1) the children’s alleged “extraordinary emotional needs” and (2) alleged unavailability of suitable preferred families after a “diligent search.”
- Expert testimony in the record indicated both an Indian home and the non-Indian home could meet the children’s general needs, while the Indian home was better situated to meet their cultural needs.
- No expert testimony established that these children had extraordinary emotional needs that could only be met by adoption with the non-Indian foster parents.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA’s “good cause” exception in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits deviation from adoptive placement preferences based on “extraordinary emotional needs” defined primarily as a need for permanence through adoption.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s findings of (a) extraordinary emotional needs and (b) unavailability of suitable preferred placements after a diligent search.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order departing from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences.
- The court held that a child’s need for stability may be considered in a “good cause” analysis, but stability is not equivalent to a need to be adopted in a non-preferred placement.
- The court concluded the record did not support findings that the children had extraordinary emotional needs warranting deviation from § 1915(a).
- The court concluded the record did not support a finding that suitable preferred placements were unavailable after a diligent search.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are controlling absent a proven showing of “good cause” to depart.
- “Good cause” may consider a child’s need for stability, but a generalized preference for adoption in a non-preferred placement is not, by itself, good cause.
- A party seeking to depart from ICWA preferences bears the burden to prove good cause with clear, specific evidence, including competent expert testimony when psychological or emotional needs are asserted.
- A finding that preferred placements are unavailable requires persuasive evidence of a genuine diligent search; the existence of a long-term non-preferred foster placement does not alone establish unavailability.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court required strict compliance with ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences and rejected a departure based on an unsupported claim that the children’s need for permanency through adoption constituted “extraordinary emotional needs,” reversing because the record did not substantiate extraordinary needs or unavailability of suitable preferred placements after a diligent search.


In re Custody of S.E.G., 521 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 1994)