The Oregon Supreme Court denied a petition for review Wednesday in a case that highlights the complex intersection of state child welfare law and tribal sovereignty in adoption proceedings. The case, *Department of Human Services v. T. G.*, involved disputes over tribal customary adoption procedures and the limits of juvenile court authority in reviewing tribal determinations.
The petition was filed Oct. 7, 2025, by Deputy Public Defender Tiffany Keast of the Oregon Public Defense Commission on behalf of T.G., also known as T.J.G. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender of the Juvenile Appellate Section, also appeared on the petition. No parties filed appearances opposing the petition for review.
The case originated in Multnomah County Circuit Court under Judge Linda Hughes and was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued its decision in 2025. The appeals court ruled 342 Or App 548, 577 P3d 893, before the matter reached the state's highest court.
At the center of the dispute was Oregon Revised Statute 419B.656, which governs juvenile court acceptance of tribal customary adoption. The Court of Appeals had determined that this statute does not authorize a juvenile court to relitigate a tribe's internal determination that tribal customary adoption is in the best interests of an Indian child or to second-guess the tribe's determination of the parameters of such an adoption.
Justice DeHoog filed a concurring opinion supporting the court's denial of the petition. In her concurrence, DeHoog specifically endorsed the Court of Appeals' interpretation of ORS 419B.656, writing that she agreed with "the Court of Appeals' rationale that ORS 419B.656 (juvenile court acceptance of tribal customary adoption) does not authorize a juvenile court to relitigate a tribe's internal determination that tribal customary adoption is in the best interests of an Indian child or its determination of the parameters of such an adoption."
The case involved multiple parties with complex relationships. The Department of Human Services served as respondent on review, along with K.C. and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. T.G. petitioned for review as the losing party in the lower court proceedings.
The matter concerned T.A.G., II, identified only as "a Child" in court documents, reflecting standard practice in juvenile proceedings to protect minor privacy. The case numbers indicate the matter moved through multiple levels of Oregon's court system, from the original circuit court case (CC 19JU05952) through the Court of Appeals (CA A186627 and A186628) to the Supreme Court (SC S072305).
Tribal customary adoption represents a significant area of law where federal Indian law, state child welfare statutes, and tribal sovereignty intersect. These adoptions allow tribes to formalize custody arrangements according to their own cultural practices and legal traditions, often differing from state adoption procedures.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 established federal standards for child custody proceedings involving Native American children, generally giving preference to tribal jurisdiction and placement with tribal members or Native families. State courts must navigate these federal requirements alongside their own child welfare laws.
Oregon's statute 419B.656 specifically addresses how state juvenile courts should handle tribal customary adoptions. The Court of Appeals' interpretation, now left standing by the Supreme Court's denial, suggests Oregon courts must respect tribal determinations about what constitutes the best interests of Indian children in customary adoption proceedings.
The case reflects broader ongoing tensions in Indian law between tribal self-determination and state authority over child welfare matters. Courts at various levels continue to address questions about the proper scope of tribal authority and the appropriate level of deference state courts should show to tribal determinations.
Justice Bushong did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case, though no explanation was provided for the recusal. The remaining justices—Chief Justice Flynn and Justices Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog, James, and Masih—were unanimous in denying the petition.
The Supreme Court's brief per curiam order provides no insight into the court's reasoning for declining to hear the case. Such denials typically indicate either that the court found no substantial legal questions warranting review or that the issues presented were adequately resolved by the lower court.
The case was considered and under advisement from Jan. 6, 2026, until the court issued its denial Jan. 29. This relatively quick turnaround suggests the court found the petition did not present the type of novel legal questions or conflicts between lower court decisions that typically warrant Supreme Court review.
For practitioners in Indian law and child welfare, the decision leaves the Court of Appeals' interpretation of ORS 419B.656 as controlling precedent. The ruling reinforces limitations on state court authority to revisit tribal determinations about customary adoption procedures and the best interests of Indian children in such proceedings.