In the Matter of K.B. and T.B.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reversed an order terminating a mother's parental rights to two Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The court held that the record did not establish adequate notice of the termination proceedings, required expert testimony concerning likely serious emotional or physical damage from continued custody, or findings addressing the State's active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family. The case was remanded for a new termination hearing.

Holdings

1. A parent may raise an ICWA notice-compliance challenge for the first time on appeal because 25 U.S.C. § 1914 authorizes a parent to petition a court of competent jurisdiction, including an appellate court, to invalidate an action that violated ICWA.
2. The termination order could not stand because the record did not establish that C.B. and the Chippewa Cree Tribe received notice of the termination proceeding by registered mail with return receipt requested at least ten days before the hearing.
3. A termination of parental rights in an ICWA case requires qualified-expert testimony addressing whether continued custody by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child; testimony that the children would be at risk, that the mother lacked a stable home, or that termination was in the children's best interests was insufficient.
4. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and the district court must address those efforts expressly. Placement with a family member does not automatically satisfy the active-efforts requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether C.B.'s failure to object in the district court waived her challenge to the adequacy of notice under ICWA.
2. Whether the State provided C.B. and the Chippewa Cree Tribe notice of the termination proceeding in compliance with 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).
3. Whether the termination order was supported by the qualified-expert testimony required by 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) and § 41-3-609(5), MCA.
4. Whether the State demonstrated the active efforts required by 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded