## Facts

- S.F. gave birth to M.F., an infant with grave medical needs who qualified as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- S.F. left the hospital without M.F., did not return, and did not meaningfully participate in the child’s medical care.
- The State filed a child-in-need-of-care (CINC) petition and sought temporary custody at the initial hearing.
- The State presented social worker Lindsay Courtney, who had limited experience and no specialized training in Indian tribal customs or child-rearing practices; the court treated her as an expert.
- Based on Courtney’s testimony that M.F. would be at risk due to S.F.’s lack of knowledge and engagement with the child’s extensive medical requirements, the district court removed M.F. from S.F.’s custody.
- After a permanency hearing found reunification not feasible, the State moved to terminate parental rights.
- At termination, the State presented social worker Lindsay Howes, similarly without tribal-custom training, who testified that S.F. could not meet M.F.’s medical needs.
- The district court deemed both social workers “qualified expert witnesses” under ICWA and terminated S.F.’s parental rights.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the witnesses did not satisfy ICWA’s expert requirement because they lacked expertise in Indian culture and child welfare practices.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA § 1912(e) requires testimony from a qualified expert witness at an initial CINC disposition that removes an Indian child from parental custody as a foster-care placement.
2. Whether a “qualified expert witness” under ICWA §§ 1912(e) and (f) must always have specialized knowledge of tribal customs and Indian child-rearing practices.
3. Whether the State met ICWA’s heightened burdens of proof, through qualified expert testimony, that continued custody by S.F. was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to M.F.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the termination of parental rights.
- The court held that ICWA § 1912(e) applies to the initial CINC foster-care placement and requires qualified expert witness testimony to support removal.
- The court held that ICWA does not impose a categorical requirement that a qualified expert witness always possess tribal-custom expertise; the necessary expertise depends on the nature of the alleged harm.
- The court concluded that, because the case concerned risk from medical neglect and inability to meet severe medical needs rather than culturally inflected parenting practices, the social workers’ professional training and experience could satisfy the qualified expert witness requirement.
- The court held the State met the § 1912(e) clear-and-convincing standard for foster-care placement and the § 1912(f) beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for termination.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA § 1912(e) applies to any foster-care placement of an Indian child, including an initial state-law CINC disposition removing the child from parental custody, and requires clear and convincing evidence that continued custody is likely to cause serious emotional or physical damage, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses.
- ICWA § 1912(f) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including qualified expert witness testimony, that continued parental custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage before terminating parental rights to an Indian child.
- ICWA does not define “qualified expert witness”; courts assess qualifications by whether the witness’s expertise relates to the specific risk of harm alleged.
- Knowledge of tribal social and cultural standards is important when cultural bias may affect the assessment of parental conduct, but it is not required in every case when the asserted danger is non-cultural (e.g., inability to manage severe medical needs).
- Professional social workers may qualify as ICWA expert witnesses when their education and experience bear directly on the alleged risk supporting foster-care placement or termination.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court held that ICWA’s qualified-expert-witness requirement applies to initial foster-care removals as well as termination proceedings, and that expert qualifications are case-specific; where the alleged danger is medical neglect rather than culturally based parenting practices, social workers with relevant child-welfare and medical-compliance experience may satisfy ICWA’s expert-testimony requirement, supporting removal and termination under ICWA’s heightened proof standards.


In re M.F., 290 Kan. 142, 225 P.3d 1177 (Kan. 2010)