 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re A.B.6/17/2003
e an Indian child to be part of an existing Indian family or the family to be involved with the tribe. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court effectively undermined the existing Indian Family exception in Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 49-53, when it stated that ICWA reflects congressional concern about the impact on tribes by the large number of Indian children adopted by non-Indians and emphasized that the tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct and separate from the interest of the child or the parents.
[ ] We also reject Cass County's assertion that the compelling interest standard applies to its constitutional challenges to ICWA.
[ ] The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that laws that treat Indians as a distinct class violate equal protection. See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 499-502 (1979); Delaware Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73, 84-90 (1977); Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 390-91 (1976); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-55 (1974). See also Matter of Appeal in Pima County, 635 P.2d 187, 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981); In re Marcus S., 638 A.2d 1158, 1159 (Me. 1994); Matter of Miller, 451 N.W.2d 576, 579 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990); State ex rel. Children's Servs. Div. v. Graves, 848 P.2d 133, 134 (Or. Ct. App. 1993); Matter of Guardianship of D.L.L. & C.L.L., 291 N.W.2d 278, 281 (S.D. 1980). The different treatment of Indians and non-Indians under ICWA is based on the political status of the parents and children and the quasi-sovereign nature of the tribe. See Pima County, at 193; Marcus S., at 1159; Miller, at 579; Graves, at 134; D.L.L. & C.L.L., at 281. We apply the rational basis test to Cass County's substantive due process and equal protection challenges, and we conclude ICWA is rationally related to the protection of the integrity of American Indian families and tribes and is rationally related to the fulfillment of Congress's unique guardianship obligation toward Indians. See Pima County, at 193; Marcus S., at 1159; Miller, at 579; Graves, at 134; D.L.L. & C.L.L., at 281. We hold ICWA does not deny A.B.'s right to equal protection or substantive due process.
[ ] The Tenth Amendment reserves all nondelegated powers to the states. D.L.L. & C.L.L., 291 N.W.2d at 281. Congress derives its power to regulate Indian matters from Art. I, § 8 of the United States Constitution, which delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian Tribes. Congress's plenary power to legislate Indian matters is well established, and we conclude ICWA is a rational exercise of that power which does not violate the Tenth Amendment. See D.L.L. & C.L.L., at 281.
VII.
[ ] We affirm the juvenile court order transferring jurisdiction of child custody proceedings involving A.B. to the Tribal Court and dismissing the petition to terminate parental rights.
[ ] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Carol Ronning Kapsner, Mary Muehlen Maring, William A. Neumann, Dale V. Sandstrom
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|