Here is the unpublished opinion:
An excerpt:
Given the interests protected by ICWA, the potentially high costs of erroneously concluding that notice need not be sent, and the relatively low burden of erring in favor of requiring notice, the Supreme Court found “the standard for triggering the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a) must be a cautionary one,” and held that sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which tribal membership might be based suffices to trigger the notice requirement. Morris, 491 Mich at 88-89. The transcript of the November 29, 2004, hearing was not provided on appeal for review of the evidence indicating Indian heritage, but the trial court deemed the evidence “weakly strong” and felt it warranted provision of ICWA notice. On appeal, the parties agree that the lower court record does not show notice was provided in 2004. Given the fact that the notice requirement was triggered in 2004, it is unnecessary to decide whether respondent mother’s comments during the 2012 termination hearing were also sufficient to require notice. If her comments were not sufficient, or even if she denied SKV’s Indian heritage, the trigger occurred in 2004, and a parent cannot waive the child’s status. Morris, 491 Mich at 111.
Turtle Talk 