## Facts

- The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took custody of “Dawn,” an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), when she was about four months old and initiated child-in-need-of-aid proceedings.
- The Native Village of Tununak (Tribe) intervened and identified ICWA-preferred placements, including Dawn’s maternal grandmother, Elise.
- Elise’s home was initially found unsuitable; the Tribe and parents agreed there was good cause at that time to depart from ICWA preferences, and Dawn was placed with non-Native foster parents (the Smiths) in Anchorage.
- Dawn remained with the Smiths for roughly two and a half years and formed strong attachments in that placement.
- After the superior court terminated the parents’ rights, the Tribe objected to continuing the non-preferred placement and asserted that ICWA’s adoptive preferences should control.
- The Smiths filed an adoption petition; Elise did not file an adoption petition or a formal placement motion seeking adoption.
- Following a placement hearing, the superior court found continued good cause to deviate from ICWA preferences, approved continued placement with the Smiths, and granted their adoption petition.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) apply when no ICWA-preferred person has filed a petition to adopt, including in an involuntary state child-protection case.
2. Whether the superior court erred in finding good cause to deviate from ICWA preferences and in approving adoption by the nonpreferred foster parents.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s placement ruling and adoption decree.
- Relying on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the court held that § 1915(a)’s adoptive placement preferences do not apply where no preferred placement has formally sought to adopt.
- Because Elise never filed an adoption petition, there was no competing preferred adoptive placement before the court to trigger application of § 1915(a).
- The court upheld the superior court’s determination that continued placement with the Smiths was supported by good cause findings, including the child’s stability and attachments in the long-term foster placement.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences under 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) apply only when an adoptive placement within a preferred category is legally presented to the court through a formal adoption petition (or comparable legally cognizable request).
- The § 1915(a) analysis does not turn on whether the adoption arises from voluntary or involuntary proceedings; the key condition is whether a preferred adoptive petitioner has come forward.
- Expressions of interest by a preferred relative, without filing an adoption petition, do not invoke § 1915(a) or require the court to search for and elevate that relative as an adoptive placement.
- A trial court may approve a nonpreferred placement upon a supported finding of good cause to deviate from ICWA preferences, including child-specific considerations such as stability and potential harm from disrupting a long-term placement.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the adoption by non-Native foster parents, concluding that ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences were not triggered because no preferred party filed an adoption petition and that the superior court’s good cause findings supported maintaining the child’s stable, long-term placement.


Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 334 P.3d 165 (Alaska 2014)