## Facts

- Two children, Nicole B. and Max B., qualified as “Indian children” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because their mother, Wendy B., was a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
- The family traveled from South Dakota to Montgomery County, Maryland, where local authorities received a neglect report.
- The county child welfare agency removed the children and placed them with their paternal aunt, a non-Indian relative.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the children as Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) and initially pursued reunification, requiring the mother to address substance abuse and other conditions.
- Over time, the agency provided case management, supervised visitation, and referrals for services, while reporting limited parental progress.
- The permanency plan changed from reunification to permanent placement with the paternal aunt; the court granted the aunt care, custody, and guardianship, allowed supervised parental visitation, and closed the CINA case.
- Notice to the Tribe occurred late; the Tribe intervened and argued ICWA required “active efforts” exceeding state-law “reasonable efforts,” and asserted inadequate consideration of ICWA placement preferences and tribal participation.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA applied to this state CINA proceeding involving Indian children located in Maryland.
2. Whether the agency made “active efforts” under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and whether those efforts proved unsuccessful.
3. Whether the permanency and placement decision complied with ICWA’s procedural protections (including notice and tribal participation) and placement-preference framework.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment granting the paternal aunt custody and guardianship and closing the CINA case.
- The court treated ICWA as applicable and upheld the finding that the agency’s documented reunification-related services satisfied the “active efforts” requirement on this record.
- The court sustained the permanency decision based on the children’s stability in the relative placement and the parents’ lack of progress despite offered services.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA applies in state child-welfare proceedings involving an “Indian child,” including foster-care-type custody arrangements and related permanency determinations.
- Under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d), a party seeking a foster care placement must show “active efforts” to provide remedial and rehabilitative services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that the efforts were unsuccessful.
- Documented, sustained agency involvement—such as case management, visitation facilitation, and service referrals—may satisfy ICWA’s “active efforts” requirement, depending on the evidentiary record.
- Tribal notice and intervention rights are enforceable in ICWA cases; late notice is a compliance concern but does not necessarily require reversal absent a showing that the statutory requirements were unmet on the record presented.
- Placement with a relative can be upheld in an ICWA case when supported by stability and safety considerations and when the court determines ICWA’s substantive requirements have been satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a CINA permanency order placing Indian children with a non-Indian paternal aunt and closing the case, concluding that ICWA applied and that the agency’s reunification-oriented services constituted “active efforts” that ultimately proved unsuccessful.


In re Nicole B., 927 A.2d 1194 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007)