Dept. of Human Services v. H. C. W.

A Tribe’s right to define its own membership for Tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49, 72 n 32, 98 S Ct 1670, 56 L Ed 2d 106 (1978).

Mother and child’s juvenile dependency case depended on whether they were members of a Tribe under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The juvenile court held that the child did not fit within that definition and, thus, did not apply the ICWA. The juvenile court reasoned that “membership based on descendancy does not qualify as membership in the Karuk Tribe for purposes of the ICWA.” In examining the legislative history of the federal statute, the Court explained that “[t]he text of 25 USC section 1903(4) is plain that a person under the age of 18 who is the child of a member of a tribe and who is eligible for membership themselves is an ‘Indian Child.’” This child—as the child of a descendant member of Tribe and as an eligible member for a descendancy—qualifies under the statute. Contrary to the juvenile court’s conclusion, the Court explained that the statute does not grant courts the latitude to determine that children eligible for some types of tribal membership would qualify as Indian children, but those eligible for other types would not.” A Tribe’s right to define its own membership for Tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49, 72 n 32, 98 S Ct 1670, 56 L Ed 2d 106 (1978). Reversed and remanded.