Here is the unpublished opinion in In the Matter of Plaunt.
An excerpt:
Second, respondent contends that the trial court erred and violated his procedural due process rights because it failed to follow the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. We disagree. Under 25 USC 1903(4), an “Indian child” is “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) . . . eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and . . . the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” See also MCR 3.002(5). The trial court properly questioned respondent and the child’s mother concerning membership or eligibility for membership in an Indian tribe or band. The child’s mother indicated that the child did not belong to any Indian tribe or band. Respondent’s vague statement that he had “Indian in my family” but did not know if he was a member or eligible for membership in any Indian tribe or band was not sufficient to put the court on notice that the child was a member or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe or band. The fact that respondent may have had some Indian heritage did not make him an “Indian” under 25 USC 1903(3) and did not qualify the child as an “Indian child” under 25 USC 1903(4). See, e.g., In re Johanson, 156 Mich App 608, 613-614; 402 NW2d 13 (1986). The trial court did not err in concluding that the child was not a member or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe or band. Respondent was not denied his procedural due process rights.
Turtle Talk 