A North Carolina appeals court has ordered a lower court to revisit a case involving the termination of parental rights for two children, G.A.D. and M.L.D. The decision, made on July 1, 2026, addresses concerns regarding compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which aims to protect the rights of Native American children and their families.
The ruling affects the respondent-mother, who is appealing the termination of her parental rights. The case highlights the importance of adhering to federal laws designed to safeguard the welfare of Indian children in custody proceedings.
Background
The case involves G.A.D. and M.L.D., two minor children whose biological parents are the respondent-mother and respondent-father. In December 2022, the Randolph County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions alleging that the children were neglected and dependent due to their parents' unstable housing and substance abuse issues. As a result, the children were placed in nonsecure custody on December 14, 2022.
The trial court held several hearings regarding the children's custody, with the parents attending only a few. During these hearings, the court repeatedly stated that it had considered the ICWA but found it not applicable. However, the court did not inquire about the respondent-mother's potential connection to any Native American tribes, which is a requirement under the ICWA.
On February 10, 2025, DSS moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents, citing a lack of progress towards reunification. The termination hearing took place on June 11, 2025, but the respondent-mother was not present. The court subsequently ruled to terminate the parental rights, leading the mother to appeal the decision.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina, led by Judge Christopher Freeman, ruled that the trial court had failed to comply with the ICWA. The court stated, "the record does not reflect that the trial court made this inquiry as to respondent-mother as required under 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a)." This lack of inquiry means that the court could not determine if there was reason to believe that the children were Indian children under the ICWA.
The court emphasized the importance of the ICWA, which establishes minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families. The court noted that the trial court must ask each participant in a custody proceeding whether they know or have reason to know if the child is an Indian child. Since the trial court did not make this inquiry regarding the respondent-mother, the appeals court decided to remand the case for further proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the case and others like it. It reinforces the necessity for courts to follow the ICWA's requirements, ensuring that the rights of Native American children and families are protected during custody proceedings. The decision highlights the need for thorough inquiries into a child's potential tribal connections, which can influence the outcome of custody cases.
The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving the ICWA, emphasizing that courts must actively seek information about a child's tribal affiliation. If the trial court finds that the respondent-mother does not have any evidence of tribal membership, the previous termination of parental rights will remain intact. However, if evidence is presented, the court will need to conduct a new hearing to determine the best course of action for the children.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the trial court for compliance with the ICWA. The court will need to conduct a new inquiry to determine if the respondent-mother knows or has reason to know whether either child has membership or eligibility for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe. Depending on the outcome of this inquiry, the court may hold a new hearing regarding the termination of parental rights.