Brown, J.
T.K. (“Father”) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to his child, S.K. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Father is the biological father of S.K., born on June 30, 2004. (Exs. I 53) On June 17, 2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging S.K. was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). An entry dated June 21, 2016, in the chronological case summary (“CCS”) indicates that the court held a hearing, Father informed the court that S.K. was subject to the Jay Treaty1 and that S.K.’s mother was Canadian, DCS indicated that it had not found the child or mother listed as Native American, and the court issued a detention order. 2 A CCS entry dated July 6, 2016, states that DCS determined that mother, while being a member of an Indian tribe in Canada, is not covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). A CCS entry dated April 26, 2017, states that Father indicated that he retained counsel and planned on suing DCS in federal court because DCS never contacted the tribe of which the child was a member. In May 2017, DCS filed for termination of Father’s parental rights, but the matter was dismissed due to exceeding statutory timelines.
….
Father argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to the ICWA. He asserts that “[t]he Lac Des Mille Lacs, also known as Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and Mille Lacs Band of the Chippewa Nation, is part of the Chippewa Nation whose homeland is in Minnesota.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. He contends that DCS failed to send notice to the Minnesota Chippewa Nation or the Minnesota Office of the Midwest Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Without citation to the record, he asserts that DCS was “presented with case law and tribal documentation identifying S.K.’s First Nations identity.” Id. at 20. He also argues that the trial court erroneously applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard instead of the more restrictive “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required by the ICWA. Id. at 21.
DCS argues that S.K. was not an Indian child for purposes of the ICWA and that the trial court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the matter and was not required to follow the ICWA’s requirements. It contends that Father failed to prove that the Minnesota tribe is the same as S.K.’s Canadian tribe. It argues that Father waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he does not challenge any of the court’s findings or conclusions.
….
To the extent Father asserts that the Lac Des Mille Lacs tribe was “also known as Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and Mille Lacs Band of the Chippewa Nation” and “is part of the Chippewa Nation whose homeland is in Minnesota,”… While Father asserts that his counsel previously informed the court that S.K.’s tribal number corresponded with a federally recognized tribe, he does not point to the record or authority to support this proposition.
The record reveals that DCS contacted the tribe in Canada after Father indicated that S.K.’s tribe was in Canada. The record also contains a letter dated March 19, 2018, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior acknowledging the official notice received by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Region, by DCS with regard to S.K. and a child who DCS initially believed may be covered by the ICWA. The letter states in part that “[t]he Lac Des Mille First Nation of Canada is not listed as a federally recognized tribe” and “[t]he federal ICWA applies only if the Tribe is a federally recognized tribe.”…
….
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed. Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.