Six Tribal Nations that currently have Tribal member children in dependency proceedings in Arizona state courts — Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Tohono O’odham Nation — filed an amicus curiae brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, in support of the appellants in In re Dependency as to M.K.. The case considers whether an Indian child’s bond with foster parents can outweigh the placement preferences mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
The brief, filed on February 19, 2026, by the Native American Rights Fund, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, and the Indian Law Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law, urges the court to reverse the Cochise County Superior Court’s decision that found “good cause” to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences based on a foster placement bond.
In their filing, the Tribes emphasize the long history of federal and state policies that resulted in the mass removal of Indian children from their families in an attempt to eradicate Tribal identity and culture. The brief details how, from the 1870s through the 1970s, government practices including boarding schools, forced assimilation, and high rates of adoption into non‑Indian homes traumatized generations of Native families. The brief notes that while some of these actions were framed as being intended to benefit Native children, they were incredibly damaging to the children, their families, and their Nations. These historic patterns led Congress to enact ICWA in 1978 to protect Indian children, strengthen Tribal sovereignty, and ensure that Native children maintain their deep connections to family, culture, and Tribal community.
“Placing children with extended family first is one of the most important requirements in the Indian Child Welfare Act. Family placements are widely considered to be in the best interest of the child. Ordinary bonding in temporary foster care is expected to happen, and it is not good cause to keep a child from loving, willing relatives. Arguments otherwise are not supported by the science or the law,” explained NARF Senior Staff Attorney Sydney Tarzwell.
The filing presents extensive medical, psychological, and child-development research showing that children placed with relatives experience greater stability, fewer disruptions, improved long-term mental health, and stronger identity formation. These benefits are especially significant for Indian children, who face higher risks of trauma and long-term harm when separated from cultural and family networks. By contrast, scientific literature shows no clear link between disruptions of foster bonds and long-term negative outcomes and warns that overreliance on bonding arguments risks undermining ICWA’s core purpose and incentivizing delayed transitions to preferred placements.
The Tribal Nations state in the brief, “This case presents a critical opportunity for the court to reaffirm that ICWA’s placement preferences are not suggestions — they are essential protections rooted in both federal law and decades of child-welfare research. Ordinary bonding with foster parents cannot justify denying an Indian child the right to grow up within his family, culture, and Tribal community.”
The Tribes emphasize that M.K., the child at issue, has extended family — with whom he already has a relationship—in Phoenix ready and able to care for him, maintain his cultural identity, and meet his developmental needs.
More blog posts
