Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,
490 U.S. 30 (1989).


Procedure:Appellant, an Indian tribe, sought review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which held that appellant did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption of twin Indian children by non-Indians under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C.S. § 1911, because the children were born off the reservation and, thus, were never domiciled on the reservation and because their parents gave consent to the adoption.

Facts: The parents of twins, born out of wedlock, were both enrolled members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (P) and residents and domiciliaries of a Choctaw reservation. The mother gave birth to the twins in a hospital 200 miles from the reservation. Both parents executed consent to adoption forms in the state court. Mr. and Mrs. Holyfield (Ds) filed a petition for adoption of the children in the same court. P moved to vacate the adoption decree on the ground that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 ("ICWA") vested exclusive jurisdiction for adoption of these children in the tribal court since they were domiciled on the reservation. The trial court overruled the motion.

Issue: When an Indian mother who is a resident and a domiciliary of an Indian reservation gives birth to an Indian child off the reservation is that child's domicile the reservation?

Holding Yes. The ICWA does not define the term "domicile." In absence of statutory definition, the meaning of "domicile" is construed by examining both the generally accepted meaning of the term and the purpose of the statute. It is generally accepted that the domicile of minors is that of the parents. Based upon the purpose of the statute, Congress could not have intended the lack of nationwide uniformity of critical statutory terms that would result from state law definitions.


Analysis: A Choctaw woman domiciled on the reservation left the reservation to give birth to her twin, illegitimate children. She and the father of her children, a Choctaw man also domiciled on the reservation, signed consents in state chancery court allowing the adoption of the children by non-Indians. Appellant, the Choctaw Tribe, filed a motion to vacate the adoption, claiming that it had exclusive jurisdiction over the children's adoption under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. § 1911. The chancery court dismissed the motion and was affirmed by the state supreme court. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that appeal was improper, but granted certiorari. The Court held that because the children's parents were domiciled on the reservation, the children were domiciliaries under ICWA. The fact that the parents left the reservation prior to birth did not change the children's domicile. The Court found that both the parents and appellant had an equal interest in the placement of the children. Thus, appellant had exclusive jurisdiction over the children's adoption. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the state supreme court and remanded the case.