In re Nicole B.

976 A.2d 1039 (2009)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Nicole B.

Maryland Supreme Court
976 A.2d 1039 (2009)


The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) imposed a special burden if the state sought to remove an Indian child from her home: the state was required to satisfy the court that (1) it had made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and (2) the efforts were unsuccessful. Wendy B. (defendant) was a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota (tribe). Wendy had two children, Max B. and Nicole B., who both qualified for ICWA protections. Child Welfare Services (CWS) (plaintiff) received a report that Wendy was neglecting five-year-old Max and three-year-old Nicole. Wendy did not regularly serve meals to Max and Nicole; Max’s front teeth had decayed, and his asthma was untreated; and Nicole was not toilet trained. CWS learned that Wendy suffered from an addiction to drugs. Max and Nicole were removed from Wendy’s home and placed with their aunt, Denise P., with the goal of reunification. Wendy was granted supervised visitation and required to obtain a substance-abuse evaluation, adhere to treatment recommendations, undergo semi-weekly urine screens, and remain free of drugs and alcohol. The court held five review hearings between June 2005 and July 2006. At each hearing, CWS reported to the court that Wendy made no progress towards sobriety or other requirements. CWS changed the goal to permanent placement with a relative. The trial court found that while the state made great efforts towards reunification, Wendy was not making efforts. CWS moved to close the matter and allow Max and Nicole to stay in Denise’s custody, but Wendy requested more time to meet the requirements. The court granted Wendy’s request. Three months later, the court found that Wendy had not addressed her substance abuse and her home was unsafe for Max and Nicole. The court denied Wendy’s request for another extension of time, finding that 14 months was enough time for her to progress towards meeting the requirements. The court closed the case, leaving Max and Nicole in Denise’s custody. Wendy appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Eldridge, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership