# State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. England

> Oregon Supreme Court · February 10, 1982 · 292 Or. 545

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558163

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Sonja Charloe, a Child. STATE Ex Rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent on Review, v. ENGLAND, Petitioner on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 10, 1982
- **Citations:** 292 Or. 545; 640 P.2d 608; 1982 Ore. LEXIS 718
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tanzer
- **Judges:** Campbell, Tanzer, Tongue
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558163

## Opinion text

TANZER, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I do not disagree with the majority, but I believe that a threshold issue is dispositive. I would hold that the notice provisions of 25 USC § 1912 have been complied with. The statute is phrased in the alternative: The moving party “shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe.” (Emphasis supplied.) Because the parent had actual notice, there was no need to notify the Indian custodian. The statute was fully complied with by notice to the parent. 1
At oral argument before this court, the state declined to urge this construction of the statute because, it contended, we should not impute to Congress an intention to violate the constitutional rights of foster parents. That contention is erroneous. First, the unambiguous words of the statute leave no room for judicial construction. If the statute is constitutionally deficient, that determination can be made in a proper proceeding which challenges the validity of the statute or asserts a constitutional claim. In this proceeding, petitioner seeks enforcement of her rights under the statute; she makes no constitutional claim. Second, whatever due process rights a legally established foster parent of less than 18 months may have, those rights do not include notice of and participation in judicial proceedings. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 US 816 , 97 S Ct 2094 , 5 L Ed 2d 14 (1977).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558163. Public record. Not legal advice.