AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) received a referral alleging that a child, referred to as Child, was abused and neglected by her parents, Douglas B. (Father) and Sara E. (Mother). The referral included allegations of domestic violence, substance abuse, and Child's self-harm and suicidal ideation. CYFD developed a safety plan but later took custody of Child due to ongoing domestic violence and drug use concerns. The parents were alleged to have refused to participate in recommended services unless court-ordered and failed to attend scheduled visitations. The Child expressed a desire not to return home due to the domestic violence (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Valencia County: The district court found Child to be an abused and neglected child and placed her in the custody of CYFD.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, that the proffered expert witness was qualified, and that the expert's testimony met the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) for Child's removal from Parents' custody (N/A).
• Respondent-Appellant (Douglas B.): Contended that CYFD did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that active efforts were made to preserve the family, that CYFD’s proffered qualified expert witness was not qualified, and that the expert did not offer the required testimony by ICWA to allow for Child’s removal (para 2).
• Respondent (Sara E.): Shared similar arguments with Douglas B. regarding the qualifications of the expert witness and the sufficiency of efforts and testimony under ICWA (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether CYFD made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether CYFD’s proffered qualified expert witness was indeed qualified under ICWA.
• Whether the expert witness provided the necessary testimony under ICWA to justify Child’s removal from Parents’ custody (para 2).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s finding that Child is an abused and neglected child and the placement of Child in the custody of CYFD, and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing consistent with the opinion (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Medina, found that the proffered expert, Kyli Ahtone, did not have the requisite qualifications to testify on whether Child’s continued custody by Parents was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to Child. While Ahtone was accepted as a qualified "ICWA expert" witness and had significant experience working ICWA cases, the court concluded that CYFD did not establish a sufficient foundation to qualify Ahtone as an expert capable of offering an opinion on the risk of harm to Child. The court clarified that ICWA sets forth two distinct requirements for qualified expert witnesses and determined that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by not distinguishing between Ahtone’s qualifications to opine on social and cultural standards and the separate requirement to be qualified to opine on emotional or physical damage to Child. Consequently, the court reversed the neglect and abuse adjudications and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing (paras 12-38).