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

• Guardians Cheryl E. and Eric E., enrolled members of the Navajo Nation, appealed the adjudication of neglect of K.B., an Indian child, also a Navajo Nation member. The child, initially in the legal custody of the Navajo Nation, was taken into the guardians' home in 2015. Over time, the child exhibited severe behavioral issues, leading the guardians to seek various treatments, including inpatient and residential care. In 2021, following a report from San Marcos Treatment Center alleging neglect by the guardians for not facilitating the child's discharge to a less restrictive setting, the Children, Youth, & Families Department (CYFD) entered into a Voluntary Placement Agreement (VPA) with the guardians, eventually leading to a petition for abuse and neglect (paras 2-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Guardians: Argued that CYFD failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) § 1912(d) prior to filing the abuse and neglect petition (para 1).
• CYFD: Asserted that they made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family by investigating the report of neglect, entering into a VPA with the guardians, hosting family-centered meetings, and attempting to contact guardians and relatives (paras 14, 49).

Legal Issues

• Whether CYFD made sufficient active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family as required by ICWA § 1912(d) prior to filing the abuse and neglect petition (para 1).

Disposition

• The adjudication of neglect was reversed, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 54).

Reasons

• The Court found that CYFD's efforts did not meet the "active efforts" requirement under ICWA § 1912(d) to prevent the unnecessary removal of an Indian child into involuntary state custody. The Court determined that CYFD's actions were not tailored to the unique circumstances of the case, did not comprehensively assess the circumstances of the child's extended family, and failed to focus on maintaining or restoring the child's connection to his extended family, tribe, and community. The Court concluded that CYFD's efforts were at best passive and did not constitute the active efforts required by ICWA prior to taking an Indian child into involuntary state custody. The Court emphasized that active efforts must be made from the time CYFD begins working with a family in response to a referral for abuse or neglect of an Indian child, with the goal of avoiding the involuntary removal of that child into state custody. The Court also noted that CYFD had legal custody of the child during the term of the VPA and therefore had the authority to place the child without authorization from the guardians, contrary to the testimony of CYFD's caseworker (paras 25-54).