integrity by acknowledging that children are vital to the continued existence of a tribe. See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(3) (1988) (finding “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children”); 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5) (finding state exercise of jurisdiction over Indian child cus tody proceedings often fails “to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families”). Fourth, this decision is consistent with the federal policy of encouraging tribal autonomy. 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (1988). Finally, the decision satisfies the parens patriae role of both the state and the tribe in protecting the welfare of the child. See Minn.Stat. § 518A.03, subd. 1 (<HOLDING>); Red Lake Tribal Code § 801.13 (recognizing
recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents recognizing that mineral interest owners bear some obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in protecting their interests recognizing the sherman acts central interest in protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child