Appeals court hears ICWA inquiry claim in adoption appeal; parties dispute record sufficiency

Natalie Hoppell, counsel for the appellant father in the adoption appeal, told the panel that the lower court did not perform a meaningful on‑the‑record ICWA inquiry and that the father has standing to raise the issue under the ICWA collateral‑attack provisions. She urged that the absence of a clear, documented colloquy or docket entry left the record deficient.

Hoppell stressed that the regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act require a good‑faith, on‑the‑record inquiry and, when information is unknown, diligence in identifying relatives and possible tribal affiliation so that notice may be sent. She argued that absent such an inquiry, the court could not be confident a tribe had been given the opportunity to participate.

The Department of Children and Families responded that exhibit materials in the record (family assessment) reflect that the parents denied Native ancestry and that the issue was not raised during the proceedings. DCF and the clinic attorney emphasized the child's need for permanency and argued that a collateral ICWA claim raised for the first time on appeal should be rejected or, at minimum, not delay placement when there is no evidence of tribal affiliation.

The panel questioned whether transcripts or docket entries from earlier hearings (the appellant had not included some initial hearing transcripts in the record appendix) were necessary to decide whether the court made an adequate inquiry. Counsel discussed statutory time limits and procedural options under 25 U.S.C. §1914 (collateral attack) and related ICWA regulations.

The court did not issue a ruling from the bench; it requested supplemental consideration of record content and noted the tension between finality/permanency and the statutory federal protection ICWA provides.