Here is the opinion in In re N.J. This is a disturbing development, especially since the Nevada Supreme Court made no effort whatsoever to engage the very real controversy whether the EIF “exception” is consistent with both the text of the ICWA and Congressional intent.

An excerpt:

We hold that the EIF doctrine should be used on a case-by-case basis to avoid results that are counter to the ICWA’s policy goal of protecting the best interest of a Native American child.  In the present case, we recognize that N.J.’s interest is protected by the ICWA because her putative father is a member of the Ely Shoshone Tribe.  Her father, however, is not contesting the termination, nor is the tribe.  The termination will not result in the breakup of a Native American family.  Indeed, the only person contesting the termination is the non-Native American parent, Dawn.  In addition, the foster family that is taking care of N.J. plans on adopting N.J. and is committed to educating her about her heritage.  Those factors lead us to conclude that in this circumstance, the application of the EIF doctrine is appropriate because, while it is an exception to the ICWA, in such scenarios it serves to advance the ICWA’s goal to protect the best interests of Native American children.  Because we conclude that the EIF doctrine is applicable, we need not reach the issue of whether DCFS made active efforts, pursuant to the ICWA, see 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d), to reunite Dawn and N.J., as application of the EIF doctrine negates the necessity of that inquiry.