Nevada: Mother challenged an order of the Third Judicial District Court of Churchill County, Nevada. BY: Becky J.

Link for opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

Title: Nevada: Mother challenged an order of the Third Judicial District Court of Churchill County, Nevada.

The Churchill County, Nevada, denied the mother her petition to vacate its earlier certification of her relinquishment of her parental rights, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the relinquishment of her parental right pursuant to section 1911(a) of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

In September of 2002, the social services division of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe removed the S.M.M.D and T.A.D. (the children) due to the welfare; the social services returned the children to Raena but the situation didn’t change. In December of 2003 the children were again removed from the home because the children did not meet the tribal blood line requirements.

The children were returned to Raena once again and the tribal social services and DCFS to conduct a second joint investigation in January 2005, the children we welfare dependency. Raena put the children in foster care of Tim and Mayris T. of Fallon.

In January 2006, the tribe changed its blood line requirements so this made a change in the children’s eligible for tribal membership and brought the within the purview of the ICWA. But Raena didn’t file the papers for her children.

In December 2006 DCFS petitioned the district court to terminate Raena’s parental tight over the children. In January 2007 the DCFS predicted the tribal court determined that the tribe and state maintained concurrent “legal and physical custody” over the children and that the “current plan and placement of the children is appropriate” and it “approved” the “termination petition proceeding in the state court.”

Raena presented three arguments for invalidating the district court’s taking of her relinquishment. First, she argues that the tribe the state court jurisdiction had known termination right of her parental rights. Second, she proposes that the state court’s sole basis for jurisdiction over Indian children. Third, she argues that the district courts termination proceeding disregarded the ICWA’s tribal and parental notice requirements.

The outcome of the district court was affirmed.