D.J. v. P.C.

FABE, Chief Justice,

with whom

CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from Part IV.B of the court's decision today holding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies in the present case. The court is correct to discuss J.W. v. R.J.1 at length but misinterprets its precedential value for P.C., grandmother of J.P.C. is placed in substantially the same position as was the stepfather in J.W. *674Thus, the case cannot be distinguished in the manner that the court suggests. Because P.C. is an "Indian custodian" under the requirements of ICWA,2 there is no reason to…