The Arizona Supreme Court Holds That the Indian Child Welfare Act Does Not Require State Law Findings for the Termination of Parental Rights to be Made by a Higher Standard of Proof in Cases Involving Indian Children.

In a case involving the termination of parental rights where one parent is a member of an Indian Nation, the proceedings are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”).  The ICWA requires that when terminating the parental rights of an Indian child, the state court must find that efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the break up of the Indian family and that these efforts have been unsuccessful.  The state court must also find that the continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damages to the child; this finding must be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including expert witness testimony.

The children’s mother in this case was a member of the Cherokee Nation.  The state juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights after making all required findings, both state law and ICWA findings, beyond a reasonable doubt.  The mother sought a jury trial and the jury was instructed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to the state law grounds for termination, the preponderance of the evidence to the best interests of the child determination, and the reasonable doubt standard to the findings under the ICWA.  The jury terminated the mother’s parental rights and the mother timely appealed. 

On appeal, the mother argued that the reasonable doubt standard was required for the state law findings as well as the ICWA findings.  The Arizona Appeals Court disagreed and affirmed the jury’s verdict.  That Court held that a dual burden of proof applies in cases involving Indian children: reasonable doubt applies to ICWA findings and a lesser burden applies to state law findings. The Appeals Court further held that Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 66(C), which provides that all allegations in a termination proceeding involving an Indian child must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is invalid because it sets forth a standard higher than that in Arizona statutes governing termination proceedings.  The mother timely appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ opinion, holding that the reasonable doubt standard does not apply to the state law findings in a parental termination proceeding involving an Indian child.  Rather, the standards set forth in Arizona statutes regarding the burden of proof apply.  The Court reasoned that the ICWA only requires that the reasonable doubt standard apply to the determination that continued custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical harm to the child; it makes no other directive regarding the burden of proof. The Court rejected the mother’s argument that applying the reasonable doubt standard to all necessary findings would promote uniform standards in termination proceedings involving Indian children, noting that Congress did not displace state law with federal law; instead, it left to the states to determine the grounds for termination and only added the two ICWA requirements.  The Court further held that Rule 66(C) impermissibly requires a higher standard of proof for state law findings that is required under Arizona’s statutes.  The legislature can set burdens of proof as a matter of substantive law, thus, a court rule cannot supplant that statutory determination. 

Justice Bales wrote for a unanimous Court.