327 P.3d 594, 761 Utah Adv. Rep. 13, 2014 UT App 115
(Cite as: 327 P.3d 594)

Court of Appeals of Utah.

STATE of Utah, in the interest of E.B., E.B., D.B., and E.M.B., persons under eighteen years of age.

D.D. and R.B., Appellants,

v.

State of Utah, Appellee.

No. 20140201-CA.

May 22, 2014.

Background: Parents sought review of order of Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department, Kay A. Lindsay and Brent H. Bartholomew, JJ., granting their voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights.

Holding: The Court of Appeals held that under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the juvenile court retained subject matter jurisdiction to accept parents' voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights.

Affirmed.

West Headnotes

[1] Indians 209 k 134(3)

209 Indians

209III Protection of Persons and Personal Rights; Domestic Relations

209k132 Infants

209k134 Dependent Children; Termination of Parental Rights

209k134(3) k. Jurisdiction; state or tribal court. Most Cited Cases

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) creates concurrent, but presumptively tribal, jurisdiction in proceedings involving Indian children not domiciled on a reservation. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, s 101(b), 25 U.S.C.A. s 1911(b).

[2] Courts 106 k 37(2)

106 Courts

106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General

106I(A) In General

106k37 Waiver of Objections

106k37(2) k. Time of making objection. Most Cited Cases

Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.

[3] Infants 211 k 2408

211 Infants

211XIV Dependency, Permanent Custody, and Termination of Rights; Children in Need

211XIV(K) Appeal and Review

211k2408 k. Parties entitled to allege error; estoppel. Most Cited Cases

Parents could raise on appeal the issue of trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to grant relinquishment of their parental rights, despite the fact that they voluntarily relinquished their parental rights, because subject matter jurisdiction could be raised at any time.

[4] Indians 209 k 134(3)

209 Indians

209III Protection of Persons and Personal Rights; Domestic Relations

209k132 Infants

209k134 Dependent Children; Termination of Parental Rights

209k134(3) k. Jurisdiction; state or tribal court. Most Cited Cases

Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the juvenile court retained subject matter jurisdiction to accept parents' voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights; tribe expressly declined jurisdiction in the matter after the juvenile court found that good cause existed not to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court, but indicated that the good cause could be overcome if the tribe came to Utah to hold proceedings, and thus, the juvenile court never issued an order transferring jurisdiction to the tribe. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, s 101(b), 25 U.S.C.A. s 1911(b).

*594 Neil D. Skousen, for Appellant D.D.

David R. Boyer, for Appellant R.B.

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem.

Before Judges GREGORY K. ORME, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and Senior Judge PAMELA T. GREENWOOD.FN1

FN1. The Honorable Pamela T. Greenwood, Senior Judge, sat by special appointment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud. Admin. R. 11-201(6).

 

Decision

PER CURIAM:

P 1 D.D. (Father) and R.B. (Mother) (collectively Parents) appeal from the orders granting the voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights. We affirm.

[1][2][3][4] P 2 Parents argue that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to accept their voluntary relinquishments of parental rights. FN2 Specifically, they argue that jurisdiction over the matter had fully transferred to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (the Tribe). The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) "creates concurrent, but presumptively tribal, jurisdiction in proceedings involving Indian*595 children not domiciled on a reservation." In re D.A.C., 933 P.2d 993, 996 (Utah Ct.App.1997). Section 1911(b) of ICWA provides that in any state court proceeding involving an Indian child not residing within a reservation, the state court shall transfer the proceeding to the tribe unless good cause exists not to transfer the case. 25 U.S.C. s 1911(b). However, the tribe may decline any such transfer. Id.

FN2. Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime. See Housing Auth. of Cnty. of Salt Lake v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, P 11, 44 P.3d 724. Accordingly, Parents may raise this issue despite the fact that they voluntarily relinquished their parental rights.

P 3 After monitoring the case for approximately one year, the Tribe filed a motion to transfer the case to its tribal court. In response to the motion, the juvenile court found that good cause existed not to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court due primarily to the fact that the case was in an advanced stage of litigation and all relevant witnesses resided in Utah. However, the juvenile court indicated that the good cause could be overcome if "the Tribe came to Utah to hold these proceedings and tried the matter at the same current level." We see nothing in the record, nor do Parents point us to any information, demonstrating that the juvenile court ever issued an actual order transferring jurisdiction to the Tribe. After the juvenile court's announcement of its good cause determination, the Tribe explored the option of sending a tribal judge to Utah County to conduct a trial and remained in contact with the juvenile court regarding that possibility. However, on June 17, 2013, the Tribe expressly declined jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, the juvenile court never issued an order transferring jurisdiction to the Tribe, and the Tribe declined to accept jurisdiction in any event. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to accept Parents' relinquishments of parental rights.

P 4 Affirmed.

Utah App.,2014.

State, in interest of E.B.

327 P.3d 594, 761 Utah Adv. Rep. 13, 2014 UT App 115