In re E.B. (D.D & R.B v. State)

2014 UT App 115
_________________________________________________________
THE U TAH COURT OF A PPEALS
STATE OF U TAH, IN THE INTEREST OF E.B., E.B., D.B., AND E.M.B.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE .
D.D. AND R.B.,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF U TAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140201‐CA
Filed May 22, 2014
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Kay A. Lindsay
The Honorable Brent H. Bartholomew
No. 1063928
Neil D. Skousen, Attorney for Appellant D.D.
David R. Boyer, Attorney for Appellant R.B.
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before J UDGES G REGORY K. ORME , MICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN, and
SENIOR J UDGE P AMELA T. G REENWOOD .1
PER CURIAM:
1. The Honorable Pamela T. Greenwood, Senior Judge, sat by
special appointment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code
Jud. Admin. R. 11‐201(6).

In re E.B.
¶1 	D.D. (Father) and R.B. (Mother) (collectively Parents) appeal
from the orders granting the voluntary relinquishment of their
parental rights. We affirm.
¶2 	Parents argue that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to
accept 	their 	voluntary 	relinquishments 	of 	parental 	rights. 2
Specifically, they argue that jurisdiction over the matter had fully
transferred to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (the Tribe). The
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) “creates concurrent, but
presumptively tribal, jurisdiction in proceedings involving Indian
children not domiciled on a reservation.” In re D.A.C., 933 P.2d 993,
996 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). Section 1911(b) of ICWA provides that in
any state court proceeding involving an Indian child not residing
within a reservation, the state court shall transfer the proceeding to
the tribe unless good cause exists not to transfer the case. 29 U.S.C.
§ 1911(b). However, the tribe may decline any such transfer. Id.
¶3 	After monitoring the case for approximately one year, the
Tribe filed a motion to transfer the case to its tribal court. In
response to the motion, the juvenile court found that good cause
existed not to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court due primarily
to the fact that the case was in an advanced stage of litigation and
all relevant witnesses resided in Utah. However, the juvenile court
indicated that the good cause could be overcome if “the Tribe came
to Utah to hold these proceedings and tried the matter at the same
current level.” We see nothing in the record, nor do Parents point
us to any information, demonstrating that the juvenile court ever
issued an actual order transferring jurisdiction to the Tribe. After
the juvenile court’s announcement of its good cause determination,
the Tribe explored the option of sending a tribal judge to Utah
County to conduct a trial and remained in contact with the juvenile
2. Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime. See Housing
Auth. of Cnty of Salt Lake v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, ¶ 11, 44 P.3d 724.
Accordingly, Parents may raise this issue despite the fact that they
voluntarily relinquished their parental rights.
20140201‐CA 	2014 UT App 115	2

In re E.B.
court regarding that possibility. However, on June 17, 2013, the
Tribe expressly declined jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, the
juvenile court never issued an order transferring jurisdiction to the
Tribe, and the Tribe declined to accept jurisdiction in any event.
Under these circumstances, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction
to accept Parents’ relinquishments of parental rights.
¶4 	Affirmed.
20140201‐CA 	2014 UT App 115	3