Here is that opinion:
An excerpt:
This appeal requires us to decide whether, under section 1919 of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (2006), a tribal-state agreement respecting child custody proceedings may vest a Nevada district court with subject matter jurisdiction to take a relinquishment of parental rights under circumstances where section 1911(a) of the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a), would otherwise lay exclusive jurisdiction with the tribal court. We conclude that the ICWA, in keeping with fundamental principles of tribal autonomy, allows for tribal-state agreements for concurrent jurisdiction even when the tribe would have exclusive jurisdiction absent an agreement. Therefore, we affirm.
The tribal-state agreement the court relies on is an agreement for this case alone, which arose from what appears to be a great example of tribal-state court cooperation. The state court involved the tribe prior to the children being eligible for membership, and thus prior to ICWA applying. When the children became eligible (based on a change in the tribe’s membership rules), the court began applying ICWA. After termination of parental rights, the state court transferred the case to tribal court for adoption proceedings. The children were not placed with their foster family, which is what led to the mother bringing the case. While it’s possible this case could be used to hurt tribal jurisdiction, from the outside at least, it appears to be a case of cooperation that benefited both the children and the tribe.
Turtle Talk 
This decision establishes a broad and dubious rule to deal with a narrow and fact specific situation. Does 1919 allow tribes to sacrifice the rights of both parents and children to have their cases decided in tribal court under 1911a? I’m not sure of the answer, but I can think of both policy and statutory reasons to say it shouldn’t be read that way. In this case though, the children were not Indian children under ICWA when the case began, and only became Indian children under 1903 when the tribe changed its membership rules and the kids were able to enroll. The court should have dealt with the situation by applying the normal rule that jurisdiction fixes at the time of filing, thus maintaining the prior proceedings and avoiding creating a controversial and possibly detrimental rule.