In re D.A.

Grand Ronde Court of Appeals

In re D.A.

12 Am. Tribal Law 362

DecidedJuly 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Am. Tribal Law 362 (In re D.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Grand Ronde Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re D.A., 12 Am. Tribal Law 362 (grrondectapp 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

JOHNSON, Associate Justice.

In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals a permanent plan order. See Tribal Code § 714(d). We exercise jurisdiction under Tribal Code Section 310(h)(2) and affirm.

Mother makes two arguments on appeal. The first, that the trial court erred by changing the permanent plan from long term foster care to permanent foster care, was not preserved by any objection before the trial court. Under ordinary circumstances, we will not review issues on appeal that were not presented to the trial court for decision in the first place. See Robertson v. Grand Ronde, 5 Am. Tribal Law 73, 75 (Grand Ronde 2004);¹ Grinnell v. Grand Ronde, 4 Am. Tribal Law 130, 131 (Grand Ronde 2003).² We decline to do so here.

Second, mother challenges the trial court’s selection of the children’s paternal aunt as the placement resource, rather than their maternal grandfather. The maternal grandfather reported to the Indian Child Welfare Program in January 2006 that he could no longer care for the children, precipitating a change in the children’s placement to the paternal aunt’s home. No evidence at trial suggested that the grandfather’s inability to care for the children had changed. The court did not err.

AFFIRMED.

WE CONCUR: ROBERT J. MILLER, Chief Justice, DON COSTELLO, Associate Justice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

JOHNSON, Associate Justice.

In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals a permanent plan order. See Tribal Code § 714(d). We exercise jurisdiction under Tribal Code Section 310(h)(2) and affirm.

Mother makes two arguments on appeal. The first, that the trial court erred by changing the permanent plan from long term foster care to permanent foster care, was not preserved by any objection before the trial court. Under ordinary circumstances, we will not review issues on appeal that were not presented to the trial court for decision in the first place. See Robertson v. Grand Ronde, 5 Am. Tribal Law 73, 75 (Grand Ronde 2004);¹ Grinnell v. Grand Ronde, 4 Am. Tribal Law 130, 131 (Grand Ronde 2003).² We decline to do so here.

Second, mother challenges the trial court’s selection of the children’s paternal aunt as the placement resource, rather than their maternal grandfather. The maternal grandfather reported to the Indian Child Welfare Program in January 2006 that he could no longer care for the children, precipitating a change in the children’s placement to the paternal aunt’s home. No evidence at trial suggested that the grandfather’s inability to care for the children had changed. The court did not err.

AFFIRMED.

WE CONCUR: ROBERT J. MILLER, Chief Justice, DON COSTELLO, Associate Justice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Am. Tribal Law 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-da-grrondectapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack