ÿWPC©" 9# .UN9 %‡ 0(w@µ4õ  0l 0D„È 0LÐ 0J 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0ô 1m„ 0cñ 1uT 0dÉ B- 0@J D3Š 0N½ AQ Æ\ 0D" 0Df D/ª BÙ U>ö B)4DC] AM U*í#Av~XvÓÖ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ +&V,&V-&V/&V0&D1&D2&3&D4&Ó€@&B\J#3|x@&((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd* 1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òNovember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€California€court€first€noted€this€possible€infirmity€in€ò òòòIn›€re€Bridget€R.ó óóó,€49€Cal.€œRptr.Ï2d›€507€(Cal.€App.€1996):ÌÌÓ  Óà8 à[œI]n›€our€view,€there€are€significant€constitutional€impediments€to€applying€ICWA,Ïrather€than€state€law,€in€proceedings€affecting€the€family€relationships€of€personsÏwho€are€not€residents€or€domiciliaries€of€an€Indian€reservation,€are€not€socially€orÏculturally€connected€with€an€Indian€community,€and,€in€all€respects€òòexcept€geneticÏheritageóó,€are€indistinguishable€from€other€residents€of€œthe›€state.€€These€impedimentsÏarise€from€œthe€due›€process€and€equal€protection€guarantees€of€the€Fifth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€and€from€the€Tenth€Amendmentððs€reservation€to€the€statesÏof€all€powers€not€delegated€to€the€federal€government.€€We€must,€of€course,Ïconstrue€the€statute€to€uphold€its€constitutionality.ÌÌœò òòòId.ó óóó›€at€522.€€This€was€also€noted€œin€ò òòòIn›€re€Alexandria€Y.ó óóó,€53€Cal.€œRptr.€2d›€679,€686€(Cal.€App.Ïœ1996)›€(ð ðrecognition€of€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine€œ[is]›€necessary€to€œpreserve€the€ICWAððsÏconstitutionality.ðð).›€€The€ò òòòAlexandriaó óóó€court€recognized€three€possible€constitutional€violations:ÌÌà8 à(1)€impermissibly€intruding€upon€a€power€ordinarily€reserved€to€the€states;€(2)Ïinterfering€with€Indian€childrenððs€fundamental€due€process€rights€respecting€familyÏrelationships;€and€(3)€depriving€Indian€children€of€equal€opportunities€to€be€adoptedÏand€exposing€them€to€an€unequal€chance€of€having€non„Indian€families€torn€apartÏbased€solely€on€race,€in€the€absence€of€a€compelling€state€purpose.ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€€ò òòòBut€see€In€re€Adoption€of€Riffleó óóó,€922€P.2d€œ510,›€514€(Mont.€1996)€(ð ð[œW]e›€hold€that€theÏapplication€of€the€ICWA€does€not€deny€(the€child)€her€constitutional€rights€and€we€decline€to€adoptÏthe€California€Courtððs€approach€œin€ò òòòIn›€re€Bridget€R.ó óóóðð).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€It€should€be€noted€that€Section€1915€provides€for€application€of€the€adoptive€preferencesÏð ðin€the€absence€of€good€cause€to€the€contrary.€.€.€.ðð€€The€considerable€delay€by€the€Nation€inÏasserting€the€provisions€of€the€ICWA€must€be€taken€into€account€in€such€a€determination.€€TheÏNation€failed€to€respond€to€several€letters€from€the€Agency,€the€first€sent€to€The€Nation€shortly€afterÏJeffreyððs€birth.€€€During€the€period€of€delay,€Jeffrey€lived€with€the€adoptive€parents€over€a€year,Ïlong€enough€to€view€them€as€his€mother€and€father.€€The€emotional€trauma€to€the€child€of€removal,Ïin€the€face€of€such€unwarranted€delay,€must€be€considered.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€*ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€241A1-j|…¦` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSON€€€Ìà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌIN€RE:€JEFFREY€THOMAS€MORGANà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Chancery€No.€106077Ïà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€ó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9608„CH„00206ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLOR€€€òòÌÌÌFor€the€Appellee,€United€Methodistóóà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellees,€ÌAdoption€Servicesóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àAdopting€Couple:à àà àà àÌÌóóDiana€L.€Schmiedà àà àà àà àà àKevin€W.€WeaverÌBartlett,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àCordova,€TennesseeÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant,€The€Tohono€à àà àà àFor€Jeffrey€Thomas€Morgan€By€HisÌœOððodham›€Nationóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àœCourt„Appointed›€Attorney€Ad€Litem:ÌóóÌMark€E.€Curryà àà àà àà àà àKay€F.€Turner€ÌSells,€Arizonaà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€Ad€LitemÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌRussell€C.€WinstonÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌò òÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€œKIRBY›€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€\ƒXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€an€adoption€case€in€which€the€Tohono€Oððodham€Indian€Nation€seeks€to€interveneÏpursuant€to€the€federal€Indian€Child€Welfare€œAct.›€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€intervene,Ïfinding€the€Act€inapplicable€under€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€family€doctrine.ðð€€In€a€case€of€firstÏimpression€in€Tennessee,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€à àÌà àJeffrey€Thomas€Morgan€(ð ðJeffreyðð),€was€born€on€July€13,€1994€to€Gloria€SaraficioÏMorgan,€(ð ðMotherðð).€€Jeffrey€was€Motherððs€fourth€child.€€Both€Jeffrey€and€Mother€are€non„domiciliary€members€of€the€Tohono€Oððodham€Indian€Nation€(ð ðNationðð),€a€federally€recognizedÏAmerican€Indian€tribe.€€Mother€has€lived€away€from€reservation€lands€for€the€past€15€years,€andÏhas€lived€in€Dyersburg,€Tennessee€for€the€past€twelve€œyears.€›€Mother€was€unmarried€at€the€time€ofÏJeffreyððs€birth,€but€identified€Jeffrey€Manners,€a€Caucasian,€as€the€father.€œ€No›€father,€however,Ïwas€named€on€the€birth€certificate€or€on€the€response€to€the€Putative€Father€Registry€request,€andÏno€œone€has›€claimed€paternity€or€attempted€to€legitimate€or€acknowledge€the€child.Ìà àAfter€Jeffreyððs€birth,€Mother€met€with€officials€from€United€Methodist€Adoption€ServicesÏ(ð ðAgencyðð)€to€develop€an€adoption€plan€for€Jeffrey.€€Jeffrey€was€placed€in€foster€care€immediatelyÏfollowing€his€birth.€€The€Agency€sent€a€letter€to€the€Nation€on€July€23,€œ1994,€›€informing€them€œof›ÏMotherððs€intention€to€put€Jeffrey€up€for€adoption,€and€also€requesting€information€concerning€theÏNationððs€adoption€policies.€€The€Nation€did€not€respond€to€this€letter.€€The€Agencyððs€attorney€thenÏsent€a€certified€letter€to€the€Nation,€received€on€September€6,€1994.€€The€certified€letter€set€forth€theÏAgencyððs€plan€to€terminate€the€putative€fatherððs€rights€and€again€informed€the€Nation€of€theÏintended€adoption€plan.€€The€letter€requested€that€the€Nation€contact€the€Agency€with€any€objectionsÏto€the€plan.€€The€Nation€did€not€respond€to€this€letter.Ìà àIn€October€1994,€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Shelby€County€entered€a€default€judgmentÏterminating€the€parental€rights€of€the€putative€father.€€The€putative€father€did€not€contest€theÏtermination€of€his€parental€rights.€€On€October€18,€1994,€Mother€voluntarily€surrendered€herÏparental€rights€to€the€Agency.€€The€Agency€then€placed€the€child€with€the€proposed€adoptiveÏparents.€€The€adoptive€parents€filed€their€petition€to€adopt€Jeffrey.€€Subsequently,€on€April€17,Í1995,€€the€Agencyððs€attorney€sent€another€certified€letter€to€the€Nation,€stating€that€the€placementÏhad€been€made€and€that€the€adoption€was€pending.€€The€Nation€received€this€letter€on€April€25,Ï1995.€€On€April€26,€1995,€the€Nation€contacted€the€Agencyððs€attorney€by€telephone€€to€requestÏinformation.€€€Ìà àOn€July€21,€1995,€the€Nation€filed€motions€in€the€Shelby€County€Juvenile€Court€for€leaveÏto€intervene€and€to€invalidate€the€Juvenile€Courtððs€order€terminating€the€putative€fatherððs€parentalÏrights.€€The€Nation€also€filed€a€motion€to€intervene€in€the€adoption€proceedings€in€Shelby€CountyÏChancery€Court,€and€a€motion€to€stay€those€proceedings.Ìà àThe€Juvenile€Court€determined€that€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€consider€the€NationððsÏmotions€in€light€of€the€adoption€petition€pending€in€Chancery€Court.€€It€deferred€to€the€ChanceryÏCourt,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ36„1„106(d)€(1996),›€to€determine€the€issues€raisedÏin€the€Nationððs€motions.€€The€Chancery€Court€appointed€a€guardian€ad€litemòò€óóand€an€attorney€adÏlitem€for€the€minor€child€and€ordered€the€prospective€adoptive€couple€and€the€Nation€to€deposit€twoÏthousand€dollars€each€with€the€Chancery€Court€for€payment€of€fees€and€expenses€incurred€by€theÏœguardian€ad€litem€and€the›€attorney€ad€litem.Ìà àOn€August€18,€œ1995,›€the€Nation€filed€additional€motions€in€Chancery€œCourt,€pursuant€toÏthe€federal€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act€(ð ðICWAðð).›€€The€Nation€filed€a€Motion€to€Transfer€JurisdictionÏPursuant€to€the€ICWA,€a€Motion€to€Invalidate€the€Order€Terminating€Parental€Rights€of€the€NaturalÏFather€and€Request€to€Open€Proceedings,€and€a€Request€for€Leave€to€Conduct€an€Evaluation€of€theÏMinor.€€The€Nation€noted€that€Motherððs€first€child,€John€Vincent€Morgan,€was€removed€fromÏMotherððs€custody€by€Texas€authorities.€€He€was€placed€with€his€maternal€grandmother,€who€livesÏon€the€Tohono€Oððodham€reservation.€€They€continue€to€live€on€the€reservation.Ìà àSubsequently,€the€attorney€ad€litem€filed€a€Motion€to€Determine€the€Applicability€of€theÏICWA€and€urged€the€trial€court€to€find€the€Act€not€applicable€based€on€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€familyÏexceptionðð€to€the€Act,€discussed€below.€€Theòò€óóattorney€ad€litemòò€óóargued€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏdeny€all€of€the€Nationððs€pending€motions.€€The€Nationððs€motions€were€also€opposed€by€theÍadoptive€parents€and€the€Agency.Ìà àThe€Chancery€Court€held€a€hearing€on€all€of€the€partiesðð€pending€motions.€€The€ChanceryÏCourt€found€that€the€facts€warranted€application€of€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine€and€that,Ïconsequently,€the€ICWA€did€not€apply.€€Therefore,€the€Nationððs€motion€to€intervene€was€denied.€ÏBecause€it€found€the€ICWA€not€applicable€to€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€all€remaining€pendingÏmotions€brought€by€the€Nation€moot.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Nation€the€right€to€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€of€its€ruling.€€The€Nation€then€filed€this€appeal.€€Ìà àSubsequently,€the€prospective€adoptive€couple€filed€a€motion€to€modify€the€record€onÏœappeal›€to€œdelete›€the€partiesðð€legal€memoranda€and€the€records€of€the€Shelby€Court€Juvenile€œCourtÏfrom€the€record.›€€This€motion€was€granted.Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€Nation€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€its€motion€to€intervene,Ïand€maintains€that€the€ICWA€is€applicable€and€requires€the€court€to€permit€the€Nationððs€interventionÏin€this€proceeding.€€The€Nation€also€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€modification€of€the€record€on€appeal€toÏdelete€the€legal€memoranda€and€the€juvenile€court€records.€€œAdditionally,€the›€Nation€contends€onÏappeal€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€refused€to€consider€its€motion€to€invalidate€the€termination€ofÏthe€putative€fatherððs€parental€rights.€€Finally,€the€Nation€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€requiring€itÏto€pay€part€of€the€fees€and€expenses€incurred€by€the€guardian€ad€litemòò€óóand€attorney€ad€litem.€€Ìà àWe€will€first€consider€the€Nationððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€its€motionÏto€intervene.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€was€based€on€the€adoption€of€the€existing€Indian€familyÏdoctrine,€a€judicial€exception€to€the€applicability€of€the€terms€of€the€ICWA.€€This€is€a€policyÏdetermination€which€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€Before€addressing€such€an€issue,Ïwe€will€determine€whether€the€ICWA,€without€consideration€of€the€doctrine,€is€applicable€in€thisÏcase.€€If€the€ICWA€is€otherwise€applicable,€we€will€then€consider€whether€the€existing€IndianÏfamily€doctrine€should€be€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€The€remaining€issues€will€then€be€addressed.€ÌœÌ›à@ àòòOVERVIEW€OF€THE€ICWAóóÌà àThe€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act€of€1978,€25€œU.S.C.›€ðððð€œ1901„1963€(1983)€(ð ðICWAðð),›€is€aÏcomprehensive€federal€statute€which€gives€federally€recognized€American€Indian€tribes€certainÏrights€with€regard€to€children€of€Indian€heritage.€€In€some€instances,€the€tribal€courts€are€givenÏexclusive€jurisdiction€over€custody€proceedings€involving€such€children;€in€other€instances,€theÏtribe€is€given€the€right€to€intervene€in€state€court€proceedings€and€assert€the€provisions€of€the€ICWAÏwhich€affect€such€custody€proceedings.€€For€example,€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1915(a)€states€that€in€theÏadoptive€placement€of€an€Indian€child,€preference€is€given€to€placement€with€a€member€of€theÏchildððs€extended€family,€other€members€of€the€childððs€tribe,€or€other€Indian€families.Ìà àThe€federal€standards€set€forth€in€the€ICWA€preempt€state€law€which€provides€a€lowerÏstandard€of€protection€for€the€rights€of€the€parent€or€the€Indian€custodian€of€an€Indian€child.€€25ÏU.S.C.€ðð€œ1921€(1983).›€€òòò òSee€also€In€re€œDependency€&€Neglect€of€N.S.ó óóó,›€474€N.W.2d€96,Ï100€(S.D.€1991)€(Sabus,€J.,€œconcurring€specially)›€(ð ðThe€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act€.€.€.€œis€a›Ïpreemptive€federal€law€which€governs€all€custody€proceedings€involving€Indian€children€exceptÏthose€incident€to€divorce€or€to€criminal€acts€committed€by€the€child.ðð).€€€Ìà àIn€ò òòòMississippi€Band€of€Choctaw€Indians€v.€Holyfieldó óóó,€490€œU.S.›€30,€109€œS.€Ct.›Ï1597,€104€œL.€Ed.€2d›€29€(1989)€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€first€considered€the€ICWA€in€aÏcase€involving€whether€an€Indian€tribe€should€be€permitted€to€remove€a€proceeding€on€the€adoptionÏof€two€Indian€children€from€a€state€trial€court€to€a€tribal€court.€€€The€Court€gave€the€followingÏbackground€on€the€ICWA:€ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act€of€1978€(ICWA),€92€Stat.€3069,€25€U.S.C.Ïðððð€€1901„1963,€was€the€product€of€rising€concern€in€the€mid„1970's€over€theÏconsequences€to€Indian€children,€Indian€families,€and€Indian€tribes€of€abusive€childÏwelfare€practices€that€resulted€in€the€separation€of€large€numbers€of€Indian€childrenÏfrom€their€families€and€tribes€through€adoption€or€foster€care€placement,€usually€inÏnon„Indian€homes.€€Senate€oversight€hearings€in€1974€yielded€numerous€examples,Ïstatistical€data,€and€expert€testimony€documenting€what€one€witness€called€ð ð[t]heÏwholesale€removal€of€Indian€children€from€their€homes,€.€.€.€œthe›€most€tragic€aspectÏof€Indian€life€today.ðð€€Indian€Child€Welfare€Program,€Hearings€before€theÏSubcommittee€on€Indian€Affairs€of€the€Senate€Committee€on€Interior€and€InsularÏAffairs,€93d€Cong.,€2d€Sess.,€3€(statement€of€William€Byler)€(hereinafter€1974ÏHearings).ÌÌà8 àFurther€hearings,€covering€much€the€same€ground,€were€held€during€1977€andÏ1978€on€the€bill€that€became€the€ICWA.€€While€much€of€the€testimony€againÏfocused€on€the€harm€to€Indian€parents€and€their€children€who€were€involuntarilyÏseparated€by€œdecisions›€of€local€welfare€authorities,€there€was€also€considerableÏemphasis€on€the€impact€on€the€tribes€themselves€of€the€massive€removal€of€theirÏchildren.€€For€example,€Mr.€Calvin€Isaac,€œTribal›€Chief€of€the€Mississippi€Band€ofÏChoctaw€Indians€and€representative€of€the€National€Tribal€Chairmenððs€Association,Ïtestified€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àð ðCulturally,€the€chances€of€Indian€survival€are€significantly€reducedÏif€our€children,€the€only€real€means€for€the€transmission€of€the€tribalÏheritage,€are€to€be€raised€in€non„Indian€homes€and€denied€exposureÏto€the€ways€of€their€People.€Furthermore,€these€practices€seriouslyÏundercut€the€tribesðð€ability€to€continue€as€self„governingÏcommunities.€€Probably€in€no€area€is€it€more€important€that€tribalÏsovereignty€be€respected€than€in€an€area€as€socially€and€culturallyÏdeterminative€as€family€relationships.ðð€€1978€Hearings,€at€193.ÌÌà8 àSee€also€òòidóó.,€at€62.€€Chief€Isaac€also€summarized€succinctly€what€numerousÏwitnesses€saw€as€the€principal€reason€for€the€high€rates€of€removal€of€IndianÏchildren:ÌÌà8 àà8 àð ðOne€of€the€most€serious€failings€of€the€present€system€is€that€IndianÏchildren€are€removed€from€the€custody€of€their€natural€parents€byÏnontribal€government€authorities€who€have€no€basis€for€intelligentlyÏevaluating€the€cultural€and€social€premises€underlying€Indian€homeÏlife€and€childrearing.€€Many€of€the€individuals€who€decide€the€fate€ofÏour€children€are€at€best€ignorant€of€our€cultural€values,€and€at€worstÏcontemptful€of€the€Indian€way€and€convinced€that€removal,€usuallyÏto€a€non„Indian€œhousehold›€or€institution,€can€only€benefit€an€IndianÏchild.ðð€€òòId.óó,€at€191„192.ÌÌà8 àThe€congressional€findings€that€were€incorporated€into€the€ICWA€reflect€theseÏsentiments.€€The€Congress€found:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àð ð(3)€that€there€is€no€resource€that€is€more€vital€to€theÏcontinued€existence€and€integrity€of€Indian€tribes€than€their€children€.Ï.€.;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àð ð(4)€that€an€alarmingly€high€percentage€of€Indian€families€areÏbroken€up€by€the€removal,€often€unwarranted,€of€their€children€fromÏthem€by€nontribal€public€and€private€agencies€and€that€an€alarminglyÏhigh€percentage€of€such€children€are€placed€in€non„Indian€foster€andÏadoptive€homes€and€institutions;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àà àð ð(5)€that€the€States,€exercising€their€recognized€jurisdictionÏover€Indian€child€custody€proceedings€through€administrative€andÏjudicial€bodies,€have€often€failed€to€recognize€the€essential€tribalÏrelations€of€Indian€people€and€the€cultural€and€social€standardsÏprevailing€in€Indian€communities€and€families.ðð€€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1901.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€ICWA€thus,€in€the€words€of€the€House€Report€accompanying€it,€ð ðseeksÏto€protect€the€rights€of€the€Indian€child€as€an€Indian€and€the€rights€of€the€IndianÏcommunity€and€tribe€in€retaining€its€children€in€its€society.ðð€€House€Report,€at€23,ÏœU.S.Code›€Cong.€&€œAdmin.News›€1978,€at€7546.€€It€does€so€by€establishing€ð ðaÏFederal€policy€that,€where€possible,€an€Indian€child€should€remain€in€the€IndianÏcommunity,ðð€òòibidóó.,€and€by€making€sure€that€Indian€child€welfare€determinations€areÏnot€based€on€ð ða€white,€middle„class€standard€which,€in€many€cases,€foreclosesÏplacement€with€[an]€Indian€family.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€at€24,€œU.S.Code›€Cong.€&€œAdmin.News›Ï1978,€at€7546.Ìà8 àÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1599„1602.ÌÌÓÓà àTo€accomplish€its€objectives,€the€ICWA€permits€the€intervening€tribe,€under€someÏcircumstances,€to€obtain€invalidation€of€the€parentððs€voluntary€consent€to€adoption€of€an€IndianÏchild€or€invalidation€of€the€Stateððs€termination€of€parental€rights.€€This€sometimes€resulted€inÏdisruption€to€an€Indian€child€who€had€already€been€placed€in€a€situation€not€conforming€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€ICWA.Ìà àœThis›€œled›€to€œthe€adoption€in€some€states€of›€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€familyðð€doctrine,€relied€uponÏby€the€trial€court€in€this€case.€€The€ð ðexisting€Indian€familyðð€doctrine€was€first€established€in€1982Ïby€the€Kansas€Supreme€Court€œin€òòò òIn›€re€Adoption€of€Baby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€643€P.2d€168,€176€œ(Kan.›Ï1982).€€In€òòò òBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€the€Court€determined€that€the€ICWA€did€not€apply€to€an€adoptionÏproceeding€involving€a€non„Indian€motherððs€illegitimate€child,€who€had€never€been€in€the€care€orÏcustody€of€the€Indian€father:ÌÓÓà8 àA€careful€study€of€the€legislative€history€behind€the€Act€and€the€Act€itself€discloses€Ïthat€the€overriding€concern€of€Congress€and€the€proponents€of€the€Act€was€theÏmaintenance€of€the€family€and€tribal€relationships€existing€in€Indian€homes€and€toÏset€minimum€standards€for€the€removal€of€Indian€children€from€their€existing€IndianÏenvironment.€€It€was€not€to€dictate€that€an€illegitimate€infant€who€has€never€been€aÏmember€of€an€Indian€home€or€culture,€and€probably€never€would€be,€should€beÏremoved€from€its€primary€cultural€heritage€and€placed€in€an€Indian€environmentÏover€the€express€objections€of€its€non„Indian€mother.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€175.Ìà àSince€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€some€states€have€adopted€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€whileÏothers€have€rejected€it.€€States€rejecting€it€have€relied€in€part€on€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtððsÏdecision€in€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€cited€above.Ìà àIn€this€case,€we€will€first€determine€whether€the€provisions€of€the€ICWA€are€applicable.€€IfÏso,€we€will€then€discuss€whether€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine€is€applicable€to€this€case€andÏwhether€it€should€be€adopted€in€Tennessee,€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€the€Nationððs€motion€to€intervene.€€After€that,€we€will€consider€the€Nationððs€other€issues€onÏappeal,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€modifying€the€record€on€appeal,€in€failing€to€consider€theÏNationððs€remaining€motions,€and€in€ordering€the€Nation€to€pay€a€portion€of€the€fees€of€the€attorneyÏad€litemòò€óóand€theòò€óóguardian€ad€litem.ÌœÌòò›à@ àAPPLICABILITY€OF€THE€ICWA€óóÌà àIn€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1901,€Congress€sets€forth€the€reason€for€the€broad€statutory€scheme€in€theÏICWA.€€It€notes€Congressðð€interest€in€the€ð ðintegrity€of€Indian€tribes,ðð€and€observes€that€anÏð ðalarmingly€high€percentageðð€of€Indian€children€are€removed€from€their€Indian€families€and€ð ðplacedÏin€non„Indian€foster€and€adoptive€homes€.€.€.€.ðð€€ò òòòId.€œó óóóðð›€1901(3)€and€(4).€€It€also€recognizes€that€theÏStates,€in€exercising€jurisdiction€over€Indian€child€custody€proceedings,€had€ð ðoften€failed€toÏrecognize€the€essential€tribal€relations€of€Indian€œpeopleðð›€and€their€ð ðcultural€and€social€standards.€.€.Ï.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóðð€1901(5).€€In€enacting€the€ICWA,€Congress€sought€to€establish:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€minimum€Federal€standards€for€the€removal€of€Indian€children€from€theirÏfamilies€and€the€placement€of€such€children€in€foster€or€adoptive€homes€which€œwillÏreflect›€the€unique€values€of€Indian€culture.€.€.€ÌÌò òòòId.óóó ó€ðð€1902.ÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€undisputed€in€this€case€that€Jeffrey€is€an€ð ðIndian€childðð€within€the€meaning€of€ICWA.€Ïò òòòSeeó óóó€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1903(4)€œ(1983)€(ð ðthe›€biological€child€of€a€member€of€an€Indian€tribeðð).€€TheÏICWA€œÇmay›€apply€to€a€ð ðchild€custody€proceeding,ðð€defined€in€the€Act€to€include€adoptive€placement€as€wellÏas€the€termination€of€parental€rights.€€ò òòòId.€œó óóóðð›€1903(1)(ii)€and€(iv).Ìà àThe€Nation€in€this€case€does€not€argue€that€the€tribal€court€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€overÏthe€proceedings€involving€Jeffrey.€€The€tribal€court€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€proceedingsÏinvolving€€an€Indian€child€ð ðwho€resides€or€is€domiciled€within€the€reservation€of€such€tribe.€.€.€.ððÏò òòòId.óóó ó€ðð€1911(a).€€It€is€undisputed€that€Jeffrey€has€never€resided€on€the€reservation.€€Transfer€of€theÏproceedings€to€the€tribal€court€may€be€mandated,€in€the€absence€of€good€cause€to€the€contrary,Ïprovided€neither€parent€objects.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€ðð€1911(b).€€In€this€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€Jeffreyððs€motherÏobjects€to€the€Nationððs€intervention€and€assertion€of€jurisdiction€over€Jeffrey.€€Consequently,Ïtransfer€of€this€proceeding€to€the€Nationððs€tribal€court€is€not€at€issue.Ìà àSection€1911(c)€addresses€the€Nationððs€right€to€intervene€in€these€proceedings.€€It€states:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€any€State€court€proceeding€for€the€foster€care€placement€of,€or€termination€ofÏparental€rights€to,€an€Indian€child,€.€.€.€the€Indian€childððs€tribe€shall€have€a€right€toÏintervene€at€any€point€in€the€proceeding.ÌÌÓÓ25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1911(c)€(1983).›€€In€this€case,€the€Nation€sought€to€intervene€in€the€Juvenile€CourtÏproceeding€in€which€the€putative€fatherððs€rights€were€terminated€and€the€Chancery€CourtÏproceedings€for€Jeffreyððs€permanent€adoptive€placement.€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€record€thatÏthe€Nation€sought€to€invalidate€the€Motherððs€voluntary€relinquishment€of€her€parental€rights€andÏconsent€to€Jeffreyððs€adoption.€€Ìà àTo€determine€whether€Section€1911(c)€affords€the€Nation€the€right€to€intervene€in€theÏJuvenile€Court€proceeding€in€which€the€putative€fatherððs€rights€were€terminated,€we€must€look€atÏthe€meaning€of€ð ðtermination€of€parental€rightsðð€under€the€ICWA.€€Section€1903(1)(ii)€defines€theÏphrase€as€ð ðany€action€resulting€in€the€termination€of€the€parent„child€relationship.ðð€€The€termÏð ðparentðð€means€the€ð ðbiological€parentðð€of€an€Indian€child,€but€specifies€that€it€ð ðdoes€not€include€theÏunwed€father€where€paternity€has€not€been€acknowledged€or€established.ðð€€œò òòòId.óóó ó›€ðð€1903(9).€€In€thisÏcase,€the€putative€father€did€not€respond€to€the€Attorney€Generalððs€petition€to€terminate€his€parentalÏrights,€and€a€default€judgment€was€entered€doing€so.€€The€putative€fatherððs€paternity€was€neitherÍacknowledged€nor€established;€the€proceeding€merely€terminated€whatever€parental€rights€he€mayÏhave€had.̜Ǜà àœIn€ò òòòIn›€re€Adoption€of€Baby€Boy€œDó óóó,›€742€P.2d€1059,€1064€œ(Okla.›€1985),€the€OklahomaÏSupreme€Court€held€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àUntil€such€time€as€a€father€has€acknowledged€or€established€paternity,€the€ICWA€isÏnot€applicable.€€Congress€has€by€this€language€evidenced€its€intent€not€to€extend€theÏICWA€to€the€child€born€out€of€wedlock€as€in€the€instant€case,€whose€father€hasÏnever€had€custody€and€has€not€acknowledged€or€established€paternity.€€We€take€thisÏto€mean€acknowledged€or€established€through€the€procedures€available€through€theÏtribal€courts,€consistent€with€tribal€customs,€or€through€procedures€established€byÏstate€law.ÌÌÓÓTherefore,€termination€of€the€putative€fatherððs€parental€rights€is€not€a€ð ðtermination€of€parentalÏrightsðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€ICWA,€and€Section€1911(c)€does€not€give€the€Nation€the€right€toÏintervene€in€the€Juvenile€Court€proceeding.€€ò òòòSee€œid.ó óóó;›€òòò òIn€re€Appeal€in€Maricopa€CountyÏJuvenile€Action€No.€A„25525ó óóó,€œ667›€P.2d€228,€233€(Ariz.€App.€1983)€(ð ðAccording€to€the€ActÏ.€.€.€there€must€be€more€than€mere€speculation€of€paternity.ðð);òòò ò€In€re€Adoption€of€a€Child€ofÏIndian€œHeritageó óóó,€543›€A.2d€925,€933€(N.J.€1988).Ìà àSection€1911(c)€mentions€only€proceedings€for€ð ðthe€foster€placementðð€of€an€Indian€child€orÏð ðthe€termination€of€parental€rights€toðð€an€Indian€child.€€25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1911(c)€(1983).›€€It€does€notÏrefer€to€a€proceeding€for€the€permanent€adoptive€placement€of€an€Indian€child.€€ò òòòIn€re€œJ.R.S.ó óóó,€690›ÏP.2d€10,€15€(Alaska€1984)€(ð ðIn€short,€we€think€œCongress›€recognized€that€terminations€andÏadoptions€might€be€handled€in€separate€actions.ðð).€€Therefore,€Section€1911(c)€does€not€give€theÏNation€the€right€to€intervene€in€the€Chancery€Court€proceeding€for€Jeffreyððs€permanent€adoptiveÏplacement.€€Ìà àThe€Nation€asserts€that€the€Agency€failed€to€provide€the€required€notice€under€SectionÏ1912(a),€which€states€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€any€involuntary€proceeding€in€a€State€court,€where€the€court€knows€orÏhas€reason€to€know€that€an€Indian€child€is€involved,€the€party€seeking€the€foster€careÏplacement€of,€or€termination€of€parental€rights€to,€an€Indian€child€shall€notify€theÏparent€or€Indian€custodian€and€the€Indian€childððs€tribe,€by€registered€mail€withÏreturn€receipt€requested,€of€the€pending€proceedings€and€of€their€right€ofÏintervention.ÌÌÓÓ25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1912(a)€(1983).›€€In€this€case,€the€only€ð ðinvoluntaryðð€proceeding€was€the€terminationÍof€the€€€parental€rights€of€the€putative€father,€by€default.€However,€as€noted€above,€the€termÏð ðparentðð€specifically€excludes€ð ðthe€unwed€father€where€paternity€has€not€been€acknowledged€orÏestablished,ðð€and€this€would€exclude€the€putative€father€in€this€œcase.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóðð€1903(9).›€ÏConsequently,€Section€1912(a)€did€not€mandate€that€notice€to€the€Nation€be€given€of€theÏinvoluntary€proceeding€to€terminate€the€putative€fatherððs€parental€rights.€€ò òòòSee€In€re€œS.A.M.ó óóó,€703›ÏS.W.2d€603,€607€(Mo.€App.€1986);€ò òòòIn€re€Child€of€Indian€œHeritageó óóó,€543›€A.2d€at€933€(ð ðTheÏsignificance€of€this€statutory€definition€(of€œððparentðð)›€is€that€€unless€(the€putative€fatherððs)€paternityÏhad€been€acknowledged€or€established€prior€to€the€final€entry€of€judgment€of€adoption€andÏtermination€of€parental€rights,€he€was€not€a€parent€entitled€to€notice€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€ððÏ1912(a).ðð).Ìà àSection€1912(d)€requires€any€party€seeking€the€termination€of€parental€rights€to€an€IndianÏchild€make€ð ðactive€efforts.€.€.€to€provide€remedial€services€.€.€.€designed€to€prevent€the€breakup€ofÏthe€Indian€familyðð€and€show€that€the€efforts€were€ð ðunsuccessful.ðð€25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1912(d)€(1983).›€ÏNo€specific€showing€was€made€by€the€Nation€in€this€regard.€€Moreover,€as€noted€above,€the€recordÏdoes€not€indicate€that€the€Nation€sought€to€invalidate€the€Motherððs€voluntary€relinquishment€of€herÏparental€rights.€Ìà àSection€1912(f)€prohibits€an€order€of€termination€of€parental€rights:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€in€the€absence€of€a€determination,€supported€by€evidence€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt,€including€testimony€of€qualified€expert€witnesses,€that€the€continued€custodyÏof€the€child€by€the€parent€or€Indian€custodian€is€likely€to€result€in€serious€emotionalÏor€physical€œdamage›€to€the€child.€ÌÌÓÓ25€U.S.C.€œðð1912(f)€(1983).›€€It€is€undisputed€that€no€such€determination€was€made€in€this€case.€ÏHowever,€application€of€this€section€to€the€facts€of€this€case€seems€inappropriate€where€neither€theÏMother€nor€the€putative€father€ever€had€custody€of€the€child,€so€that€ð ðcontinued€custody€of€the€childÏby€the€parent€€.€.€.€is€likely€to€result€in€serious€emotional€or€physical€damage€to€the€child.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€Ìà àSection€1913€sets€forth€measures€designed€to€ensure€that€a€parent€who€voluntarilyÏrelinquishes€parental€rights€to€an€Indian€child€fully€understands€the€consequences€of€such€anÍaction.€€However,€as€noted€above,€there€is€no€allegation€in€this€case€that€the€Mother€did€notÏunderstand€her€actions€or€that€her€consent€was€invalid.Ìà àSection€1914€also€addresses€the€Nationððs€right€to€intervene€in€the€state€court€proceeding.€€ItÏstates:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€Any€Indian€child€who€is€the€subject€of€any€action€for€foster€care€placement€orÏtermination€of€parental€rights€under€State€law,€any€parent€or€Indian€custodian€fromÏwhose€custody€such€child€was€removed,€and€the€Indian€childððs€tribe€may€petitionÏany€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€to€invalidate€such€action€upon€a€showing€thatÏsuch€action€violated€any€provision€of€sections€1911,€1912,€and€1913€of€this€title.ÌÌÓÓ25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1914€(1983).›€€This€statute€gives€the€Nation€the€right€to€seek€invalidation€of€a€fosterÏcare€placement€or€a€termination€of€parental€rights€if€the€Nation€makes€a€showing€that€there€was€aÏviolation€of€Sections€1911,€1912€or€1913.€€As€set€forth€above,€there€has€been€no€showing€of€aÏviolation€of€Sections€1911,€1912,€or€1913.€€Therefore,€the€Nation€has€no€right€to€interveneÏpursuant€to€Section€1914.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€In€re€Baby€Boy€œDó óóó,€742›€P.2d€at€1064.€Ìà àThe€Nation€also€asserts€the€applicability€of€the€adoptive€preferences€set€forth€in€25€U.S.C.Ïðð€1915(a).€€This€section€states:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€In€any€adoptive€placement€of€an€Indian€child€under€State€law,€a€preference€shallÏbe€given,€in€the€absence€of€good€cause€to€the€contrary,€to€a€placement€with€(1)€aÏmember€of€the€childððs€extended€family;€(2)€other€members€of€the€Indian€childððsÏtribe;€or€(3)€other€Indian€families.ÌÌÓÓ25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1915(a)€(1983).›€€Section€1915(c)€also€states€that€the€preference€of€the€parent€may€beÏconsidered.€€25€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1915(c)€(1983).›€€ð ðAlthough€the€Act€explicitly€provides€a€tribe€with€theÏright€to€intervene€in€foster€care€and€termination€proceedings€.€.€.€it€does€not€preclude€a€trial€courtÏfrom€exercising€its€discretion€in€allowing€intervention€by€a€tribe€in€an€adoption€proceeding.ððò ò€€òòIn€reÏMaricopa€œCountyó óóó,€667›€P.2d€at€233.Ìà àThe€Nation€argues€that€it€has€the€right€to€intervene€to€assert€these€adoptive€preferencesÏpursuant€to€Rule€24€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Rule€24.01€sets€forth€theÏstandards€for€intervention€as€a€matter€of€right:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€Upon€timely€application€anyone€shall€be€permitted€to€intervene€in€an€œaction:›€(1)Ïwhen€a€statute€confers€an€unconditional€right€to€intervene;€or€(2)€when€the€applicantÍclaims€an€interest€relating€to€the€property€or€transaction€which€is€the€subject€of€theÏaction€and€the€applicant€is€so€situated€that€the€disposition€of€the€action€may€as€aÏpractical€matter€impair€or€impede€the€applicantððs€ability€to€protect€that€interest,Ïunless€the€applicantððs€interest€is€adequately€represented€by€existing€parties;€or€(3)€byÏstipulation€of€all€the€parties.ÌÌÓÓUnder€Rule€24.01(2),€the€Nation€certainly€ð ðclaims€an€interestðð€relating€to€the€subject€of€this€action,Ïits€interest€in€asserting€the€adoptive€preferences€set€forth€in€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1915(a).€€The€dispositionÏof€this€action,€making€Jeffreyððs€adoption€by€the€adoptive€couple€final,€would€ð ðimpedeðð€theÏNationððs€ability€to€protect€that€interest.€€œTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€24.01.€€As›€demonstrated€by€theÏstrenuous€objections€of€the€adoptive€agency,€the€adoptive€couple€and€the€attorney€ad€litem€to€theÏNationððs€intervention,€the€Nationððs€interest€is€not€adequately€represented€by€any€of€the€existingÏparties.€€Therefore,€if€the€ICWA€is€applicable€in€this€cause,€Rule€24.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure€appears€to€give€the€Nation€the€right€to€intervene€to€assert€the€adoptive€preferencesÏset€forth€in€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1915.€Ìà àConsequently,€it€is€necessary€to€consider€whether€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€familyðð€doctrineÏshould€be€adopted€in€Tennessee,€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏNationððs€motion€to€intervene€in€this€œcause.Ì›Ìòòà@ àPRE„HOLYFIELD€DECISIONS€ON€THE€EXISTING€INDIAN€FAMILY€DOCTRINEóóÌà àPrior€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€on€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€a€number€of€statesÏadopted€what€has€become€known€as€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€family€doctrineðð€or€the€ð ðexisting€IndianÏfamily€exceptionðð€to€the€ICWA.€€€As€discussed€above,€it€was€initially€set€forth€œin€ò òòòIn›€œre›€AdoptionÏof€Baby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€643€P.2d€168,€176€(Kan.€1982).€€In€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€the€mother€of€theÏillegitimate€child€was€a€non„Indian,€who€had€consented€to€the€childððs€adoption€by€a€non„IndianÏcouple.€€The€father,€of€Indian€heritage,€was€served€notice€of€the€adoption€proceedings€while€inÏprison.€€He€sought€to€block€the€adoption€and€to€obtain€custody€of€the€child.€€The€fatherððs€IndianÏtribe€also€sought€to€intervene€to€assert€the€provisions€of€the€ICWA.Ìà àThe€court€in€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó€found€that€the€Congressðð€overriding€concern€in€enacting€theÍICWA€was€to€maintain€Indian€family€and€tribal€relationships.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€175.€€It€found€that€CongressððÏintent€ð ðwas€not€to€dictate€that€an€illegitimate€infant€who€œhas›€never€been€a€member€of€an€IndianÏhome€or€culture,€and€probably€never€would€be,€should€be€removed€from€its€primary€culturalÏheritage€and€placed€in€an€Indian€environment€over€the€express€objections€of€its€non„IndianÏmother.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Rather,€it€found€that€ð ðthe€underlying€threadðð€throughout€the€ICWA€was€concernÏð ðwith€the€removal€of€Indian€children€from€an€existing€Indian€family€unit€and€the€resultant€breakupÏof€the€Indian€family.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€the€Court€concluded€that€ð ðthe€ICWA,€by€its€own€terms,Ïdoes€not€apply€to€these€proceedings.€.€.€.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€176.Ìà àOther€courts€utilized€this€reasoning€in€interpreting€the€applicability€of€the€ICWA.€€ò òòòSee,Ïe.g.,€€In€re€Adoption€of€D.M.J.ó óóó,€741€P.2d€1386,€1389€(Okla.€1985);€òòò òIn€re€Adoption€ofÏT.R.M.ó óóó,€525€N.E.2d€298,€303€(Ind.€1988).€€This€doctrine€came€to€be€known€as€the€ð ðexistingÏIndian€family€doctrineðð€or€the€ð ðexisting€Indian€family€exceptionðð€to€the€ICWA.€€ò òòòIn€re€AdoptionÏof€œT.N.F.ó óóó,€781›€P.2d€973,€977€(Alaska€1989).€€Ìà àOther€courts,€prior€to€òòò òHolyfieldó óóó,€declined€to€adopt€the€doctrine.€€For€example,€in€ò òòòIn€reÏAdoption€of€a€Child€of€Indian€Heritageó óóó,€543€A.2d€925€(N.J.€1988),€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏNew€Jersey€held€that€the€fact€that€a€mother€had€voluntarily€placed€her€child€up€for€adoption€did€notÏpreclude€the€applicability€of€the€ICWA€even€though€the€child€had€never€been€exposed€to€an€IndianÏenvironment.€€Criticizing€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€the€court€reasoned:ÌÓÓà8 àœ€€€€€We›€disagree€with€this€interpretation€of€the€Act€because€it€posits€as€aÏdeterminative€jurisdictional€test€the€voluntariness€of€the€conduct€of€the€mother.€€TheÏAct€itself€does€not€suggest€this€factor€as€a€jurisdictional€test€of€the€Actððs€coverage,Ïalthough€it€is€unquestionably€relevant€in€the€Actððs€application.€.€.€.€The€effect€onÏboth€the€tribe€and€the€Indian€child€of€the€placement€of€the€child€in€a€non„IndianÏsetting€is€the€same€whether€or€not€the€placement€was€voluntary.ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.€ó óóóat€932.€€ò òòòSee€alsoóó€òòIn€re€J.R.S.óóó ó,€690€P.2d€10,€16€(Alaska€1984)€(holding€that€the€ICWAÏð ðdoes€not€limit€a€œstate€courtððs›€power€to€allow€intervention€in€child€custody€proceedingsðð).ÌÌà@ àòòHOLYFIELDóóÌà àAlthough€the€decision€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€ò òòòMississippi€Band€ofÏChoctaw€Indians€v.€Holyfieldó óóó,€490€U.S.€30,€104€L.Ed.2d€29,€109€S.Ct.€1597€(1989),€doesÏnot€address€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€it€construes€the€ICWA€provisions€for€exclusiveÏtribal€jurisdiction€over€child€custody€proceedings.ò òòòÌà àHolyfieldó óóó€involved€two€unwed€Indian€parents€who€resided€on€the€reservation.€€TheyÏtraveled€away€from€the€reservation€for€the€birth€of€their€twins€and€made€plans€for€the€children€to€beÏadopted€by€a€non„Indian€couple,€the€Holyfields.€€Both€parents€relinquished€their€parental€rights€andÏconsented€to€the€adoption.Ìà àSubsequently,€the€parentsðð€tribe€moved€to€vacate€the€adoption,€asserting€that€the€ICWAÏgave€the€tribal€court€exclusive€jurisdiction.€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€natural€parents€ð ðwent€toÏsome€efforts€to€see€that€[the€twins]€were€born€outside€the€.€.€.€€Reservationðð€œand€to›€arrange€œfor€their›Ïadoption€by€the€Holyfields.€œò òòòId.ó óóó,€109€S.Ct.€at€1603.€€It›€also€noted€that€the€twins€had€never€residedÏon€the€reservation.€€Consequently,€it€denied€the€tribeððs€motion€to€vacate€the€adoption.€€This€wasÏaffirmed€by€the€state€supreme€court,€and€the€tribe€œappealed.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó›€Ìà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€first€found€that€state€law€should€not€be€applied€inÏdefining€ð ðdomicileðð€because€Congress€ð ðintended€a€uniform€federal€law€of€domicile€for€the€ICWA.ðð€Ïò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1607.€€It€then€noted€that€the€domicile€of€an€illegitimate€child€is€generally€the€domicile€of€theÏmother.€€It€observed€that€the€mother€had€remained€domiciled€on€the€reservation,€and€that€the€twinsððÏdomicile€was€therefore€the€reservation€ð ðeven€though€they€themselves€had€never€been€there.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€atÏ1608.Ìà àThe€Court€stated€that€the€motherððs€voluntary€surrender€of€the€twins€did€not€change€theÏresult.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€€€It€maintained€that€Congress€did€not€intend€for€the€parents€of€an€Indian€child€to€be€ableÏto€defeat€the€application€of€the€ICWA€simply€by€giving€birth€to€their€children€off€the€reservation,Ïwhile€the€parents€remained€domiciled€on€the€reservation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1608„1611.€€The€Court€recognizedÏthat€the€ICWA€protects€the€interests€of€the€tribe,€as€well€as€the€interests€of€individual€IndianÏchildren€and€families.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1609.€€It€quoted€with€approval€a€Utah€decision€which€stated€that,Íunder€the€ICWA,€ð ðthe€tribe€has€an€interest€in€the€child€which€is€distinct€from€but€œon€a›€parity€withÏthe€interest€of€the€parents.ðð€€òòò òId.€ó óóóat€œ1610›€(quoting€òòò òIn€re€Adoption€of€œHallowayó óóó,›€732€P.2d€962,Ïœ969„70›€(Utah€1986)).€€à àThe€Court€also€cited€with€approval€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€a€ChildÏof€Indian€Heritageó óóó,€œfor›€the€proposition€that€ð ðcongressional€objectives€make€clear€that€a€rule€ofÏdomicile€that€would€permit€individual€Indian€parents€to€defeat€the€ICWAððs€jurisdictional€scheme€isÏinconsistent€with€what€Congress€intended.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1609€(citing€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€a€Child€ofÏIndian€œHeritageó óóó,€543›€œA.2d€925,€931„33€(N.J.€1988)).›€€Therefore,€the€Court€concluded€that€theÏstate€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€enter€a€decree€of€adoption,€and€that€the€tribal€court€had€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€over€the€proceedings.€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1611.€€Ìà à€State€courts€have€split€in€their€application€of€the€òòò òHolyfieldó óóó€decision€to€the€issue€of€theÏexisting€Indian€family€doctrine.€€Some€courts€have€rejected€the€doctrine,€relying€on€òòò òHolyfieldó óóó€inÏtheir€reasoning.€€Others€have€adopted€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€noting€that€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóóÏdoes€not€address€it.€€The€difference€in€reasoning€by€these€courts€has€been€succinctly€described€byÏthe€Utah€appellate€court:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€fundamental€difference€between€the€jurisdictions€is€that€those€in€favor€of€theÏdoctrine€see€it€as€a€policy€prerequisite€to€application€of€ICWA,€while€those€inÏopposition€to€the€doctrine€consider€it€an€impermissible,€judicially„created€exceptionÏcontrary€to€ICWAððs€plain„language.ÌÌòòò òÓÓState€of€Utah,€in€re€D.A.C.ó óóó,€933€P.2d€993,€998€(Utah€App.€1997).€€We€will€first€discuss€theÏcases€€that€reject€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€then€those€that€adopt€it.ÌÌà@ àòòDECISIONS€REJECTING€THE€EXISTING€INDIAN€FAMILY€DOCTRINEóóÌà àSince€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€state€courts€that€decide€not€to€adopt€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrineÏhave€almost€inevitably€cited€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€in€support€of€this€position.€€In€one€of€the€first€state€courtÏdecisions€on€this€issue€after€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Alaska€rejected€the€doctrine.€€ò òòòSeeÏIn€re€Adoption€of€T.N.F.ó óóó,€781€P.2d€973€(Alaska€1989).€€Citing€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€it€emphasizedÏthat,€in€enacting€the€ICWA,€Congress€sought€to€protect€the€interests€of€the€Indian€tribes,€as€well€asÍthe€interests€of€the€Indian€œÇchildren›€and€their€parents.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€977.€€The€Alaska€court€œcommented:ÌÓÓ›à8 àState€courts€must€be€particularly€hesitant€in€creating€judicial€exceptions€to€a€federalÏact€which€was€enacted€to€counter€state€courtsðð€prejudicial€treatment€of€IndianÏchildren€and€communities.€.€.€.òòò ò€€óóó ó[T]o€utilize€a€judicially„created€ð ðIndian€familyððÏexception€would€be€to€enter€onto€a€slippery€slope€which€threatens€to€exclude€theÏvery€type€of€cases€Congress€had€in€mind€when€it€adopted€the€Act.ÌÌòòò òÓÓId.€ó óóóat€977„978.€€€The€Idaho€Supreme€Court€also€rejected€the€doctrine,€citing€òòò òHolyfieldó óóó:ÌÓÓà8 àAlthough€an€Indian€family€requirement€has€been€applied€œby€the›€courts€of€otherÏstates,€we€believe€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€effectively€underminedÏthe€imposition€of€this€requirement.€.€.€.€[òòò òHolyfieldó óóó]€indicates€that€the€jurisdictionalÏprovisions€of€ICWA€apply€to€child€custody€proceedings€involving€Indian€childrenÏregardless€of€where€the€children€are€born€or€where€they€are€proposed€for€adoption.€ÏThis€application€of€ICWA€is€based€on€the€interest€the€tribe€has€in€its€children.Ìà@ à****Ìà8 àWe€also€reject€application€of€an€Indian€family€requirement€because€the€provisions€Ïof€ICWA€do€not€contain€any€limitation€based€on€where€the€child€is€located.€ÏLimiting€ICWA€to€situations€in€which€an€Indian€child€is€being€removed€from€anÏexisting€Indian€family€is,€therefore,€a€judicially€created€exception€to€ICWA.€ÏCongress€passed€ICWA€to€limit€state€court€power€by€creating€mandatory€protectiveÏprocedures€and€minimum€evidentiary€standards€that€must€be€applied€in€childÏcustody€proceedings€concerning€Indian€children.€€In€light€of€the€structure€and€natureÏof€ICWA,€it€is€inappropriate€to€use€a€judicially€created€exception€to€circumvent€theÏmandates€of€ICWA.ÌÌòòò òÓÓIn€re€Baby€Boy€Doeó óóó,€849€P.2d€925,€œ931„32›€(Idaho€œ1993);›€€œòòò òsee›€also€In€re€œN.S.ó óóó,›€474ÏN.W.2d€œat›€œ100„101›€(Sabers,€J.€concurring€specially)€œ(ð ð.€.€.€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó›€.€.€.€authoritativelyÏestablished€the€principle€that€the€provisions€of€œICWA›€are€to€be€strictly€construed€and€applied.ðð);€ò òòòInÏre€œD.A.C.ó óóó,€933›€P.2d€at€œ999€(ð ðThe›€policies€of€the€Act€.€.€.€are€frustrated€by€the€adoption€of€theÏexisting€Indian€family€exception.ðð);€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€œQuinnó óóó,€845›€P.2d€206,€209€(Ore.€App.Ï1993);€ò òòòIn€re€œElliottó óóó,€554›€N.W.2d€32,€35„36€(Mich.€App.€1996);€œò òòòIn›€re€Crystal€œK.ó óóó,€276›€Cal.ÏœRptr.›€œ619,€624„25ò ò›€ó ó(Cal.€App.€1990);€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€œBaadeó óóó,€462›€N.W.2d€485,€489„90Ï(S.D.€1990).Ìà àTherefore,€courts€that€reject€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine€generally€consider€it€aÏjudicially„created€exception,€contrary€to€the€plain€language€of€the€ICWA€and€cite€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€asÏsupporting€a€strict€construction€of€the€Act.€€As€discussed€below,€however,€other€courts€haveÏdetermined€that€ò òòòHolyfield€ó óóódoes€not€preclude€adoption€of€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine.ÌÌà@ àòòDECISIONS€ADOPTING€THE€EXISTING€INDIAN€FAMILY€DOCTRINEóóÌà àNotwithstanding€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€some€states€have€adopted€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,Ïdemonstrating€an€unwillingness€to€apply€the€ICWA€in€situations€in€which€the€Indian€children€hadÏlittle€or€no€exposure€to€an€Indian€environment€prior€to€their€removal€to€non„Indian€families.€€Ìœ›à àPrior€to€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€Oklahoma€had€adopted€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine.€€ò òòòSeeÏBaby€Boy€œD.ó óóó,›òòò ò€supraóóó ó;òòò ò€In€re€œD.M.J.ó óóó,€òòò òsupraó óóó.›€€This€holding€was€reaffirmed€by€the€OklahomaÏSupreme€Court€after€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€in€ò òòòIn€re€S.C.ó óóó,€833€P.2d€1249,€1254„56€(Okla.€1992).€€In€ò òòòInÏre€S.C.ó óóó,€the€Indian€father€œof€a€five„year„old€Indian€child€and€a€six„year„old€Indian€child›€sought€toÏinvalidate€the€foster€placement€of€the€children,€pursuant€to€the€ICWA,€after€having€had€no€contactÏwith€the€children€prior€to€the€initiation€of€court€proceedings.€€The€Oklahoma€court€reaffirmed€itsÏadoption€of€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€and€found€the€Act€inapplicable€because€ð ðthere€wasÏno€existing€Indian€family€being€broken€up€as€contemplated€by€the€ICWA.ðð€œò òòòId.ó óóó›€at€1253.€€TheÏIndian€father€argued€that€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€implicitly€overruled€earlier€cases€adopting€the€doctrine.€€TheÏòòò òIn€re€S.Cóó.€ó ócourt€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àœ€€€€€As›€for€the€far„reaching€interpretation€suggested€by€Father,€we€decline€to€extendÏthe€case€to€the€facts€at€bar.€€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€stands€for€two€propositions:€(1)€that€federalÏlaw€œpre„empts›€state€law€as€to€the€definition€of€domicile,€and€(2)€the€domicile€of€anÏIndian€child€is€that€of€the€mother€if€the€child€is€born€out€of€wedlock.€€Other€courtsÏhave€construed€this€case€similarly,€confining€it€to€the€issues€presented€and€theÏholding€reached.€.€.€.€We€do€not€believe€that€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€invalidates€either€ò òòòBabyÏBoy€D.€ó óóóoròòò ò€In€re:€D.M.J.ó óóó.€ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1254€(citations€omitted).€€The€Oklahoma€court€also€addressed€the€argument€that€the€existingÏIndian€family€doctrine€is€a€judicially„created€exception€to€the€ICWA,€not€contemplated€byÏCongress:ÌÓÓà8 àòòò òD.M.J.€ó óóódoes€not€create€an€exception€not€contemplated€by€the€legislature.€€Rather,Ïthe€preservation€of€the€existing€Indian€family€was€an€integral€purpose€of€the€ICWAÏfrom€its€inception.€The€ICWA€was€never€meant€to€apply€in€those€cases€such€asÏœòòò òD.M.J.ó óóó,€where›€the€daughter€had€lived€with€her€non„Indian€mother€some€sevenÏyears€since€the€divorce€from€the€Indian€father.€€Nor€was€it€meant€to€apply€in€thisÏcase,€where€five€œand›€six€years€had€gone€by€without€the€fatherððs€being€involved.€€AsÏstated€œin€òòò òIn›€re€Adoption€of€Baby€Boy€Ló óóó,€231€Kan.€199,€643€P.2d€168€œ(1982):›ÌÌà8 àà8 àœð ðthe›€underlying€thread€that€runs€throughout€the€entire€Act€[is]€to€theÏeffect€that€the€Act€is€concerned€with€the€removal€of€Indian€childrenÏfrom€an€existing€Indian€family€unit€and€the€resultant€breakup€of€theÏIndian€family.ððÌÌà8 àOur€interpretation€is€supported€by€recent€events€in€the€Congress.€In€1987Ïamendments€were€presented€by€the€Senate€Committee€on€Indian€affairs.€€TheseÏproposed€amendments€were€occasioned€by€the€courtsðð€refusing€to€apply€the€ICWAÏto€situations€like€this€one.€€The€amendments,€if€enacted,€would€have€madeÏapplication€of€the€ICWA€mandatory€regardless€of€whether€the€child€had€ð ðpreviouslyÏlived€in€Indian€country,€in€an€Indian€cultural€environment€or€with€an€Indian€parent.ðð€ÏòòSeeóó€S.1976,€100th€Cong.,€1st€Sess.,€133€Cong.€Rec.€S18532,€S18533€(daily€ed.ÏDec.19,€1987)€(proposed€amendment€to€Section€1903(1)).€€However,€theÏamendments€never€came€out€of€the€Senate€Committee,€and€at€the€time€of€thisÏwriting,€have€not€been€presented€again.€€Congress,€being€aware€of€this€œCourtððs›Ïdecision€œin€òòò òIn›€re€D.M.J.ó óóó,€as€well€as€decisions€from€other€states€using€similarÏreasoning,€has€refused€to€change€the€statutory€language€to€do€away€with€thisÏinterpretation.ÌÌòòò òId.ó óóó€at€1255.Ìà8 àÌÓÓà àThis€reasoning€was€relied€upon€by€the€Kentucky€Supreme€Court€in€ò òòòRye€v.€Weaseló óóó,€934ÏS.W.2d€257,€261€(Ky.€1996).€€In€ò òòòRyeó óóó,€an€Indian€child€was€removed€from€her€Indian€mother€atÏbirth€and€placed€with€foster€parents.€€The€foster€father€was€Indian,€the€foster€mother€was€not.€€TheÏchildððs€biological€father€was€unidentified.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€259.€€Years€later,€the€foster€parents€divorced,€andÏthe€non„Indian€foster€mother€was€awarded€custody€of€the€Indian€child.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€260.€€The€KentuckyÏSupreme€Court€affirmed,€finding€that€the€ICWA€was€not€applicable€because€of€the€existing€IndianÏfamily€doctrine.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€264.€€The€ò òòòRyeó óóó€court€found€that€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€did€not€address€the€existingÏIndian€family€doctrine€and€was€not€contrary€to€it.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€262„63.€€It€stated€that€Congress€did€notÏintend€the€ICWA€to€apply€œto›€situations€involving€children€of€Indian€heritage€who€had€never€lived€inÏan€Indian€family.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€264.€€The€Kentucky€court€cited€favorably€the€Oklahoma€decision€in€œòòò òIn›€reÏœS.C.ó óóó,€observing:›€€ð ðOklahoma,€which€contains€a€large€Indian€population€and€consequently€œ[is]€one›Ïof€the€states€most€often€presented€with€this€vexing€problem,€has€been€one€of€the€leading€states€inÏdeveloping€[the€existing€Indian€family]€doctrine.ðð€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€261.Ìà àIn€adopting€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine,€some€courts€have€looked€not€only€atÏwhether€the€Indian€child€was€being€removed€from€an€existing€Indian€family,€but€also€at€whether€theÍchild€would€be€placed€into€an€Indian€environment€if€the€ICWA€were€applied.€€In€ò òòòIn€re€AdoptionÏof€œCrewsó óóó,›€œ825›€P.2d€305,€310€œ(Wash.€1992),›€the€mother€of€the€child€at€issue€was€of€IndianÏancestry,€although€at€the€time€the€child€was€œborn›€she€was€uncertain€how€much€ð ðIndian€bloodðð€sheÏhad.€€The€father€was€non„Indian.€€The€biological€parents€selected€an€adoptive€couple€andÏvoluntarily€relinquished€their€parental€rights.€€After€the€baby€was€born,€the€mother€signed€a€consentÏto€adoption€and€the€child€was€placed€in€the€temporary€custody€of€the€potential€adoptive€parents.€ÏWithin€days,€the€mother€began€seeking€the€return€of€the€baby€and€a€reinstatement€of€her€parentalÏœrights.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€306„07.›€€Ìà àWhen€the€baby€was€approximately€three€months€old,€the€mother€filed€a€petition€pursuant€toÏthe€ICWA,€seeking€an€order€vacating€the€termination€of€her€parental€rights.€€The€record€indicatedÏthat€the€mother€researched€her€Indian€heritage€in€order€to€reinstate€her€parental€rights€and€œhad€had›Ïno€previous€contact€with€her€tribe.€€The€trial€court€found€the€ICWA€inapplicable€and€denied€theÏmotherððs€petition€to€reinstate€her€parental€rights.€€The€motherððs€tribe€was€later€permitted€toÏintervene€on€appeal€to€argue€the€applicability€of€the€œICWA.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€307„08.›€€ÌœÇ›à àThe€Washington€court€cited€the€statement€in€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€that€the€ICWAÏconcerns€ð ðthe€removal€of€Indian€children€from€an€existing€Indian€family€unit€and€the€resultantÏbreakup€of€the€Indian€œfamily.ð𛀜ò òòòId.ó óóó›€(quoting€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€643€P.2d€at€175).€€It€noted€that€theÏIndian€mother€had€never€been€part€of€an€Indian€family€unit€and€had€no€plans€to€move€to€theÏreservation€if€her€parental€rights€were€reinstated.€€òòò òCrewsó óóó,€825€P.2d€at€310.€€It€cited€cases€fromÏother€jurisdictions€holding€the€ICWA€inapplicable€where€the€Indian€child€was€not€being€removedÏfrom€an€Indian€environment,€and€found€that€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó€did€not€preclude€such€a€holding.€œò òòòId.ó óó󛀀TheÏò òòòCrewsó óóó€court€stated:ÌÓÓòòò òà8 àHolyfieldó óóó€supports€our€conviction€that€ICWA€is€not€applicable€when€an€IndianÏchild€is€not€being€removed€œfrom›€an€Indian€cultural€setting,€the€natural€parents€haveÏno€substantive€ties€to€a€specific€tribe,€and€neither€the€parents€nor€their€families€haveÏresided€or€plan€to€reside€within€a€tribal€reservation.€€In€such€a€situation,€whether€orÏwhen€a€child€meets€the€definition€of€ð ðIndian€childðð€under€ICWA€is€not€controlling.Ìà8 àœÌà8 à€€€€€We›€are€not€unmindful€that€prior€abusive€child€welfare€practices€may€have€cut€offÏlarge€numbers€of€persons€from€their€Indian€heritage.€€Furthermore,€there€may€beÏinstances€where€the€application€of€ICWA€would€result€in€the€placement€of€an€IndianÏchild€back€into€an€Indian€environment.€€This€is€not€the€case€before€us.òòò ò€€óóó óIt€is€withinÏthe€narrow€circumstances€presented€by€the€specific€facts€of€this€case€that€we€findÏICWA€not€applicable.ò òòò€ó óóóÌÌò òòòÓÓId.óóó ó€at€œ310„11€(citation€omitted).›€€Thus,€the€ò òòòCrewsó óóó€court€looked€not€only€at€whether€the€IndianÏchild€was€being€removed€from€an€existing€Indian€family,€but€also€at€whether€application€of€theÏICWA€would€result€in€the€child€being€returned€to€an€Indian€environment.€€ò òòòSee€also€In€reÏBridget€œR.ó óóó,€49›€œCal.€›€œRptr.€2d›€507,€œ522›€(Cal.€App.€1996)€(ð ð[I]t€does€not€follow€from€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóóÏthat€ICWA€should€apply€when€neither€the€child€òònor€either€natural€parentóó€has€ever€resided€or€beenÏdomiciled€on€a€reservation€or€maintained€any€significant€social,€cultural€or€political€relationshipÏwith€an€Indian€tribe.ðð);€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€œS.S.ó óóó,€657›€N.E.2d€935,€944„45€(Ill.€1995)€(Heiple,ÏJ.,€concurring)€œ(asserting›€that€ð ð[t]he€ò òòòHolyfield€ó óóóCourt€.€.€.€never€refers€to€the€existing€IndianÏfamily€exception,ðð€and€that€the€exception€is€still€valid);€œò òòòIn›€re€œT.S.ó óóó,€801›€P.2d€œ77,€82›€œ(Mont.›Ï1990);€ò òòòIn€re€œC.E.H.ó óóó,€837›€S.W.2d€947,€952€(Mo.€App.€1992);€œò òòòIn€re€Hamptonó óóó,€658›€œSo.€2d›Ï331,€336„37€(La.€App.€1995);€ò òòòIn€re€Alexandria€œY.ó óóó,€53›€œCal.€›€œRptr.€2d›€679,€684„86€(Cal.€App.Í1996);€Ìà àSome€courts€have€suggested€that€the€ICWA€would€not€be€constitutional€in€the€event€that€the€Ïexisting€Indian€family€doctrine€is€not€recognized.€€This€is€premised€on€a€possible€infringement€ofÏthe€Fifth,€Fourteenth,€and€Tenth€œAmendments.× ƒ5 ××  ×›Ìòòà@ àANALYSIS€OF€EXISTING€INDIAN€FAMILY€DOCTRINEóóÌà àIn€this€case,€Mother€is€of€Indian€heritage€but€does€not€live€on€the€reservation€and€has€hadÏlittle€or€no€contact€with€the€Nation€for€over€fifteen€years.€€The€putative€father€is€non„Indian.€€TheÏchild€was€voluntarily€relinquished€at€birth€and€has€lived€with€the€prospective€adoptive€parentsÏthroughout€these€proceedings.€€When€Jeffrey€was€one€year€old,€after€several€communications€fromÏthe€Agency,€the€Nation€sought€to€intervene€to€assert€the€provisions€of€the€ICWA.€€In€its€pleadings,Ïthe€Nation€implies€that€Jeffrey€could€be€placed€with€Motherððs€extended€family€on€the€reservation.€ÏMother€objects€to€the€Nationððs€intervention€in€this€case.€€Ìà àIf€the€ICWA€is€applicable,€then€the€Nation€would€be€permitted€to€intervene€to€assert€theÏadoptive€preferences€set€forth€in€25€U.S.C.€ðð€1915.œ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€€We€must€therefore€determine€if€the€ICWA€isÏintended€to€apply€to€circumstances€such€as€these,€that€is,€whether€Tennessee€should€adopt€theÏexisting€Indian€family€doctrine.€€ÌœÇ›à àWe€are€wary€of€an€exception€to€a€federal€statute€created€by€state€courts.€€ò òòòSee€In€reÏAdoption€of€T.N.F.ó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó;€and€ò òòòMatter€of€Baby€Boy€Doeó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó.€€€However,€inÏinterpreting€any€statute,€federal€or€state,€we€must€be€mindful€of€the€purpose€for€which€the€statuteÏwas€enacted.€€òòò òSharp€v.€œRichardsonó óóó,€937›€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.€1996)€(ð ðThe€role€of€theÏCourt€in€construing€statutes€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€legislative€intent.ðð).€€We€areÏpersuaded€that€the€ICWA€was€intended€to€remedy€ð ðthe€removal€of€Indian€children€from€an€existingÏIndian€œfamily€unit›€and€the€resultant€breakup€of€the€Indian€family.ðð€ò òòòBaby€Boy€L.ó óóó,€643€P.2d€atÏ175;€ò òòòsee€also€œóóó ó25€U.S.C.€ðð€1901€(1983);€ò òòòHolyfieldó óóó,€109›€œS.€Ct.›€at€1599„1602.€€The€ICWA,€byÏits€terms€and€the€Congressional€statement€of€its€purpose,€does€not€reflect€an€intent€to€apply€toÏcircumstances€such€as€these,€in€which€the€putative€father€is€a€non„Indian,€and€the€Indian€motherÏyears€ago€left€the€reservation.€€By€all€indications,€even€if€Jeffrey€had€remained€with€Mother,€heÏwould€not€be€raised€in€an€Indian€environment.€€Rather€than€preserving€an€existing€Indian€family,Ïapplication€of€the€ICWA€under€these€circumstances€would€disrupt€the€adoptive€family€unit€to€placeÏin€an€Indian€environment€a€child€who€has€had€no€contact€with€the€reservation.€€We€agree€withÏcourts€finding€that€the€ICWA€was€not€meant€to€apply€to€such€situations.€€ò òòòSee€In€re€S.C.ó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó;ò òòòÏRye€v.€Weaseló óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó;€œò òòòCrewsó óóó,òòò ò›€œsupraó óóó;›€òòò òBridget€R.ó óóó,€òòò òsupraó óóó;€òòò òAdoption€of€S.S.ó óóó,€œòòò òsupraó óóóÏ(Heiple,€J.,€concurring);›€œò òòòIn›€re€œT.S.ó óóó,òòò ò›€supraóóó ó;€ò òòòIn€re€œC.E.H.ó óóó,›€œò òòòsupraóóó ó;›€ò òòòHampton€v.€œJ.A.L.ó óóó,›Ïòòò òsupraó óóó;€€ò òòòAlexandria€œY.ó óóó,òòò ò›€œsupraó óóó.›€Ìà àœWe›€must€note€that€at€least€one€court€has€also€appeared€to€require,€in€order€to€apply€theÏexisting€Indian€family€doctrine,€a€showing€that€the€Indian€child€would€not€be€placed€in€an€IndianÏenvironment€if€the€ICWA€were€applied.€€ò òòòSee€Crewsó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó;€œò òòòIn€re›€Adoption€of€M.ó óóó,€832€P.2dÏœ518,€522€(Wash.›€œApp.›€1992).€€We€decline€to€adopt€such€a€requirement,€because€we€find€that€theÏterms€and€stated€purpose€of€the€ICWA€indicate€that€it€was€intended€to€prevent€the€breakup€ofÏòòexistingóó€Indian€families.Ìà àTherefore,€we€find€the€provisions€of€the€ICWA€inapplicable€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€basedÏon€the€existing€Indian€family€doctrine.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Nationððs€motion€to€interveneÍis€affirmed€on€this€basis.Ìà àThe€Nation€also€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€requiring€it€to€pay€part€of€the€fees€andÏexpenses€incurred€by€the€guardian€ad€litem€and€the€attorney€ad€litem.€€We€find€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€by€the€trial€court€in€requiring€such€payment.€€The€remaining€issues€raised€by€the€NationÏon€appeal€are€pretermitted€by€our€affirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Nationððs€motion€toÏintervene€based€on€the€inapplicability€of€the€ICWA.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌ