B.H. v. People ex rel. X.H.
Colorado Supreme Court
138 P.3d 299 (2006)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
B.H. (defendant) was the birth mother of X.H. Neither B.H. nor X.H. had sought enrollment in an Indian tribe. The El Paso County Department of Human Services (the state) (plaintiff) filed a motion to terminate B.H.’s parental rights. The day before the hearing on the motion, the court learned that X.H.’s grandmother had previously informed the state of her Native American ancestry, but the state did not investigate or contact the tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The trial court reprimanded the state, went forward with the hearing without notice to the tribe, and terminated B.H.’s parental rights. B.H. appealed, arguing that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) required the court to give notice to the tribe before the hearing. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, though it acknowledged that giving notice to the tribe would have been preferable. On the assumption that B.H. and X.H. were not enrolled in the tribe because they had not sought enrollment, the appellate court held that B.H. had the burden of showing that X.H. was an Indian child but that B.H. did not carry her burden. For that reason, the appellate court affirmed the termination of parental rights. B.H. appealed again.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coats, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.