Johnson v. Beecher

NICHOLAS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. KIRK and DEBRA BEECHER, andCHELSEA LACASSE, Defendants.

Case No. 2:18CV703DAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

February 14, 2019

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Judge Dale A. Kimball

This matter is before the court on Defendants Kirk and Debra Beecher's Motion to Dismiss Complaint to Invalidate Guardianship Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1914 [ECF Docket No. 12]. On February 6, 2019, the court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Plaintiff Nicholas Johnson was represented by Paul Tsosie, and Defendants Kirk and Debra Beecher were represented by Nicole Salazar-Hall and Cedar Q. Cosner. After hearing argument, the court took the matter under advisement. The court has carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

BACKGROUND

Nicholas Johnson is the biological father of three minor children, O.J., Z.J., and M.J. Chelsea Dawn LaCasse is the biological mother of the three children. Johnson and LaCasse had an on-and-off relationship from 2005 to 2014, living together at multiple residences in Nampa and Meridian, Idaho until their final separation in August 2014. At that time, Johnson moved in with his parents in Meridian, Idaho, while LaCasse stayed at their home in Nampa, Idaho. In February 2015, LaCasse moved to Payson, Utah, with the three children to live with her mother and step-father, Defendants Debra and Kirk Beecher.

On July 29, 2015, the Utah Division of Child and Family Services ("DCFS") filed a verified petition regarding custody of the three children with the Fourth District Juvenile Court in and for Utah County, State of Utah, due to LaCasse's substance abuse. In September 2015, the Beechers intervened in the Utah state case and entered into a stipulation with DCFS, LaCasse, and the children's Guardian ad Litem. Under the stipulation, the court awarded the Beechers permanent custody and guardianship of the minor children. On September 4, 2015, the Utah State juvenile court closed the case based on the mediated settlement.

In December of 2015, LaCasse asked Johnson if she could stay with him at his parents' home in Meridian, Idaho for a couple of weeks. At that time, he learned that Debra Beecher had custody of the children and that there was a Utah State juvenile court case. Johnson had not been aware of any of the court proceedings until that time. Six months later, on June 15, 2016, the Utah State juvenile court granted Johnson's Motion to Reopen the Case, specifically finding that Johnson was not properly served with a copy of the State's Verified Petition for Custody.

On September 16, 2016, Johnson served the Beechers with a Verified Petition to Change Custody and Guardianship asking for custody of the three children. The Beechers filed their Answer to the Petition on October, 11, 2106. Although Johnson had not filed the Petition with the state juvenile court, the state court judge allowed the Petition to be filed in the action on the first day of trial, December 12, 2106. The state court judge considered the Petition in the trial. However, nowhere in Johnson's Petition does he refer to the ICWA or the fact that the threechildren may be of Indian heritage.

From 2010 to 2017, the Johnson family discussed enrolling all eligible members in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Kimble Johnson, Nicholas' father and the paternal grandfather of Nicholas' three children, enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma in 2010. The rest of the family had the necessary paperwork to apply as members. But Nicholas had not applied for enrollment or become enrolled as a tribal member when he became involved in the state juvenile custody case or at the time of the trial in that case.

Later in the proceedings, when Nicholas Johnson learned that there were procedural and substantive protections that could apply to his children, he started the process to become an enrolled member in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. On November 7, 2017, Nicholas Johnson obtained a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, and the next day obtained a Choctaw Nation Membership Card. Nicholas Johnson and his three minor children became enrolled members of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma on November 13, 2017.

On November 16, 2017, during a review hearing in the state custody case, Utah State Fourth District Juvenile Court Judge F. Richards Smith held that Nicholas Johnson was a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe and that the minor children were Indian Children pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA"). The Beechers provided notice of the custody proceedings to the Choctaw Nation, pursuant to the ICWA. The Choctaw Nation submitted a letter to the court, dated December 20, 2017, stating that conflicting information prevented the Choctaw Nation from taking a position on the custody issue.

On January 16, 2018, Judge Smith issued a final Permanency Order denying Nicholas Johnson's Petition to Change Custody and Guardianship. In the Permanency Order, Judge Smithexplicitly found that "[t]he ICWA did not apply to this case until November 13, 2017, [when Johnson became an enrolled member], and is not applied retroactively." Judge Smith also found that even though the active provisions of the ICWA were not required, active efforts had been provided to Johnson and Johnson failed to engage in those services to restore custody. Judge Smith further found that the placement of the children with the Beechers complied with the ICWA as being a qualified Indian placement. Judge Smith then denied Johnson's petition to change custody and ordered that the children remain in the permanent custody of the Beechers.

Johnson did not appeal the state court's decision to the Utah Court of Appeals. Rather, on September 6, 2018, Johnson filed the instant Complaint in this court to invalidate guardianship pursuant to the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1914.

DISCUSSION

Beechers' Motion to Dismiss

The Beechers move the court to dismiss Johnson's Complaint to Invalidate Guardianship Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1914, arguing that (1) this court should abstain from ruling on the ICWA claim based on the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, (2) the ICWA claims are barred by res judicata, and, in any event, (3) the state juvenile court properly applied the ICWA. Johnson learned that Utah courts were reviewing the custody of his children in December of 2015 but he did not enroll as a member of the Choctaw Nation until November of 2017, well after he had asked the state court to reopen the case, filed a petition to change custody, and had a trial in the juvenile court. When he enrolled in the Choctaw Nation in November of 2017, the court acknowledged his enrollment and addressed the ICWA issues. Now, Johnson challenges the juvenile court's determination that the ICWA's protections do not apply retroactively. TheBeechers argue that this challenge is an improper attempt to appeal the state court decision and his Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because it rests on issues that were already fully litigated and resolved by the Utah juvenile court.

1. Rooker-Feldman

Johnson's Complaint asks this court to invalidate the Utah state juvenile court's guardianship decision. It is well established that a "United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Federal courts recognize that "it was the province and duty of the state courts to decide" federal constitutional questions, "and their decision, whether right or wrong, was an exercise of jurisdiction." Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263, U.S. 413, 415 (1923). "[C]ases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments" is prohibited. Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). A "party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a Untied States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994).

In this case, Johnson concedes that his Complaint, on its face, falls within the boundaries of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. However, Johnson contends that § 1914 of the ICWA is an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Section 1914 of the ICWA states:

Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child wasremoved, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.

25 U.S.C. § 1914. Johnson relies on Doe v. Mann, in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that Section 1914 of the ICWA "provides the federal courts authority to invalidate a state court foster care placement or termination of parental rights if it is in violation of Sections 1911, 1912, or 1913." Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Beechers do not argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear ICWA cases under the federal question doctrine. Rather, the Beechers assert that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit Johnson to seek review of the state court's ICWA decision in this court. The key distinction with this case and Doe is that, in Doe, the state proceedings dealt only with state law. The judge did not make any findings concerning the child's status as an Indian child under ICWA. In the present case, Judge ...