## Facts

- L.J.Y. (mother) was a member of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, and T.T. (father) was a member of the Fort Mojave Tribe.
- The parents had a child who was also a member of the Fort Mojave Tribe.
- T.T. filed a petition in the Fort Mojave Tribal Court seeking to take custody from L.J.Y. and award custody to T.T.
- The petition did not allege abuse or neglect; it alleged the request was for the child’s welfare and safety and that L.J.Y. had caused undue hardship to the child and to T.T.
- At the hearing, the tribal court proceeded as if the tribe had filed a neglect petition against L.J.Y. and allowed testimony from T.T. and his mother about L.J.Y.’s alleged negligence.
- The tribal court ordered the child removed from L.J.Y.’s custody without permitting L.J.Y. to be heard.
- A Fort Mojave Social Services Department employee appeared and, without a party request, recommended that the child be placed with T.T.’s mother and father (the paternal grandparents).
- The tribal court announced that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied and entered a temporary custody order placing the child with the paternal grandparents.
- No party had moved for placement with the grandparents, and the court did not make a best-interests finding on the record.
- T.T. appealed, and the child remained in the grandparents’ custody while the appeal was pending before the Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals for the Fort Mojave Tribe.

## Issues

1. Whether the tribal court could remove the child from the mother’s custody and enter a temporary placement order without allowing the mother an opportunity to be heard.
2. Whether the tribal court could treat a private custody petition as a neglect-type matter without appropriate pleadings and notice that neglect allegations would be litigated.
3. Whether the tribal court’s statement that ICWA applied was sufficient to support removal and third-party placement, or whether ICWA-related safeguards and findings were required.
4. Whether the tribal court could order a temporary placement with the paternal grandparents based on a social-services recommendation when no party requested that placement and the court made no best-interests finding.

## Decision

- The Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals set aside the tribal court’s temporary custody/removal order and remanded for further proceedings.
- The appellate court concluded the temporary removal could not stand where the mother was not allowed to be heard before the child was taken from her custody.
- The appellate court rejected handling the case as a neglect-style matter when it was initiated as a private custody petition and had not been pleaded or noticed as a neglect proceeding.
- The appellate court directed the tribal court to conduct further proceedings using appropriate procedures and supported findings before ordering removal or third-party placement, including when invoking ICWA.

## Legal Principles

- A court may not remove a child from a parent’s custody, even temporarily, without basic procedural fairness, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- A private custody dispute and a neglect/child-protection case are different kinds of proceedings; a court must not convert one into the other without the pleadings, notice, and process required for the type of case being tried.
- A temporary placement with third parties (including grandparents) must rest on an adequate record and articulated findings; a placement decision should not be based solely on an unrequested recommendation.
- When a court relies on ICWA in making a removal or placement decision, it must apply ICWA’s required standards through findings and procedures, not by conclusory invocation.

## Conclusion

In *In the Matter of a Minor Child (L.J.Y. v. T.T.)*, the Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals for the Fort Mojave Tribe set aside a temporary order that removed a tribal child from the mother and placed the child with the paternal grandparents in a case initiated as a custody petition, holding that the trial court had proceeded without giving the mother a chance to be heard and without using the proper procedures and findings required for removal and ICWA-based placement decisions.


In the Matter of a Minor Child (L.J.Y. v. T.T.), 8 SWITCA 4, No. 92-008-FMTC (1997)