Id. at 303. See In the Matter of the Adoption of T.R.M., 525 N.E.2d 298, 302-03 (Ind. 1988); In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy L., 231 Kan. 199, 643 P.2d 168, 175 (1982); In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy D., 742 P.2d 1059, 1064 (Okl. 1985) reh'g denied (1987), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1042, 98 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1988); In the Interest of S.A.M., 703 S.W.2d 603, 607-09 (Mo.App. 1986); Claymore v. Serr, 405 N.W.2d 650, 654 (S.D. 1987); see also Note, The Indian Child Welfare Act: Does It Cover Custody Disputes Among Extended Family Members?, 1 Alaska L.Rev. 157, 160-68 (1984) (critique of this court's refusal to create an "Indian family" exception to ICWA in A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1982)).See, e.g., Baby Boy L, 643 P.2d at 175 (ICWA does not "dictate that an illegitimate infant who has never been a member of an Indian home or culture . . . should be removed from its primary cultural environment over the express objections of its non-Indian mother"); Baby Boy D, 742 P.2d 1059 (unwed father lacked standing to invoke ICWA since he never had custody and had not acknowledged or established paternity and where child never resided in an Indian family and had a non-Indian mother); S.A.M., 703 S.W.2d at 607-09 (Mo.App. 1986) (ICWA did not apply since unwed Indian father and non-Indian mother never lived as a family); Claymore, 405 N.W.2d at 654 (ICWA inapplicable since Indian child resided with non-Indian mother and was never part of "Indian family").

"The language of the Act contains no [existing Indian family] exception to its applicability, and we do not deem it appropriate to create one judicially." ( Id. at p. 796, citing A.B.M. v. M.H. (Alaska 1982) 651 P.2d 1170, 1173.) The biological parents argue that an additional California case, In re Crystal K. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 655 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 619], also declines to apply the existing Indian family doctrine, but that characterization is not entirely accurate.

" We categorized at least one of these custody disputes as a foster care placement.A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Alaska 1982) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1) ). 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1).

25 U.S.C. §§ 1903(1)(ii), 1912(d), (f).D.J. v. P.C., 36 P.3d 663, 673 (Alaska 2001); see also A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Alaska 1982) (rejecting argument that "[ICWA] appl[ies] only to custody proceedings involving the removal of Indian children from their homes by nonfamily public and private agencies, not to disputes within the extended family"); B.J. JONES, MARK TILDEN KELLY GAINES-STONER, THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT HANDBOOK 37 (2d ed. 2008)("[I]t is clear from legislative history and case law that [ICWA] governs any proceeding in which the termination of parental rights is a potential disposition." (footnotes omitted)).

951 P.2d at 1215.Id. at 1212; see also H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 8 (1978); Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 37 (1989); A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Alaska 1982). However, the analogy is not as apt as P.C. suggests, and we are not persuaded to ignore the plain language of the statute in order to hold that § 1912(f) does not apply to the case at bar.

25 U.S.C.1916(a). By directing district courts to section 1912 to determine whether returning custody is not in the child's best interests, section 1916(a) dictatesthe criteria a party challenging a petition must satisfy. In addition, applying all of section 1912's subsections to a challenged return-of-custody petition comports with the only other known published case on point, A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1982). Though opinions from courts of other states are not binding on Minnesota courts, they may have persuasive value.

By directing district courts to section 1912 to determine whether returning custody is not in the child's best interests, section 1916(a) dictates the criteria a party challenging a petition must satisfy. In addition, applying all of section 1912's subsections to a challenged return-of-custody petition comports with the only other known published case on point, A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1982). Though opinions from courts of other states are not binding on Minnesota courts, they may have persuasive value.

The states rejecting the doctrine include Alaska, California, Idaho, Michigan, and Oregon. See A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982); In re Junious M., 144 Cal.App.3d 786, 193 Cal.Rptr. 40, 46 (1983); In re Baby Boy Doe, 123 Idaho 464, 849 P.2d 925, 931 (1993); In re Elliott, 218 Mich. App. 196, 554 N.W.2d 32, 35-36 (1996); In re Adoption of Quinn, 117 Or. App. 579, 845 P.2d 206, 209 n. 2 (1993). The existing Indian family doctrine was first adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court, which determined ICWA did not apply to an adoption proceeding involving a non-Indian mother's illegitimate child, who had never been in the care or custody of the Indian father.

(§ 1903(1)(ii).) Two types of child custody proceedings are specifically excluded from the Act: (1) custody disputes resulting from divorce proceedings between parents of an Indian child; and (2) placements of Indian children resulting from juvenile delinquency actions. (§ 1903; A.B.M. v. M.H. (Alaska 1982) 651 P.2d 1170, 1173.) BIA has issued guidelines for state courts in Indian child custody proceedings.

atutory construction, express exceptions exclude all other exceptions"); Comanche Indian Tribe v. Hovis, 847 F. Supp. 871, 876 (W.D. Okla. 1994) (declining to apply the intra-family exception on the ground that application of the exception would constitute judicial legislation rather than statutory interpretation) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1)) (additional citation omitted), rev'd on other grounds, 53 F.3d 298 (10th Cir. 1995); In re A.K.H., 502 N.W.2d 790, 794 (Minn. 1993) (declining to adopt the intra-family exception because "the only exceptions to the applicability of the Act are custody disputes in divorce actions and delinquency proceedings" and adopting a third intra-family exception would be "contrary to law"); In re Q.G.M., 808 P.2d 684, 687-88 (Okla. 1991) (explaining that recognition of a third exception for intra-family disputes would require judicial legislation rather than statutory interpretation and holding that the ICWA therefore does not exclude intra-family disputes); In re A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that the court would not create a "judicial exception to the Act's coverage" because Congress explicitly excluded custody disputes resulting from divorce proceedings and juvenile delinquency actions from the protections of the Act, but failed to include any exception for custody disputes within the extended family), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 (1983). The Court finds the reasoning of those jurisdictions rejecting Bertelson and declining to adopt an intra-family exception to the ICWA persuasive. The ICWA broadly defines covered proceedings to include foster care placements, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placements, and adoptive placements.