What burden of proof is required of state grounds for termination in ICWA cases?
Some courts hold that the state and federal schemes create dual burdens of proof which must be met separately. In re Bluebird, 411 S.E.2d 820, 823 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992) (holding state burden of proof applied to state grounds and federal burden of proof to federal grounds); In re Elliott, 554 N.W.2d 32, 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (holding both the state and the federal burdens of proof must be met as to the respective grounds); In re S.A.E., 912 P.2d 1002, 1004-05 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (holding ICWA burden applies only to the federal grounds, while the state burden continues to apply to the state grounds, and those grounds are not preempted; indeed, 1921 recognizes viability of differing state standards of protection-both requirements for termination must be met by their respective burdens); In re D.S.P., 480 N.W.2d 234, 238-39 (Wis. 1992) (holding dual burden of proof applies; since 1921 requires use of state law whenever that state law provides a higher standard, “we find it appropriate t
