The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) & Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA); Notice requirements; 25 USC § 1912(a); 25 CFR § 23.107(b); In re Morris; In re Jones

Because the record did not show that the notice required by the ICWA and MIFPA was provided to the relevant tribes, the court conditionally reversed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights and remanded to the trial court for compliance with the ICWA and MIFPA. “The trial court did not confirm with DHHS that it used diligence to verify that the child was a member of a tribe, did not treat the child as an Indian child, and did not determine on the record that the child does or does not meet the definition of an Indian child.” The DHHS recognized on appeal that the trial court erred as to the statutory notice requirements and asked the court “to reverse conditionally and remand to the trial court so that the issue can be addressed.” Consistent with this request as well as with Morris and Jones, the court did so. “On remand, if the trial court establishes that the notice provisions of ICWA and MIFPA do not apply or were otherwise satisfied, the order terminating respondent’s parental rights should be reinstated. Alternatively, if the notice provisions of ICWA and MIFPA do apply and were not satisfied,” the termination order “must be vacated and all proceedings must begin anew in accord with those statutes.” The court retained jurisdiction and issued an order as to the proceedings on remand.