Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Lane v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided September 14, 2011No. 108,747Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
FISCHER, V.C.J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part and concurring in result.
T1 I coneur in part, coneur in result and dissent only with respect to the burden of proof adopted by the Majority. I would apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof to all elements that must be established to terminate Father's parental rights to these Indian children.
12 As noted by the Majority, this termination proceeding is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act and specifically 25 U.S.C. § 1912. There are two things the ICWA required the State to prove before Father's parental rights could be…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. HolyfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Jon S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- In re C. G.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
- In re T.R.W.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityArizona Supreme Court · 2009
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.