a tribe’s strong interest in retaining its children within the tribe. Id. at 37, 109 S.Ct. 1597. 17 . Given that its policy conflicts with the express purpose of the ICWA, we take this opportunity to reject the "Existing Indian Family” doctrine (the "EIF”). See Note, The Indian Childs Welfare Act of 1978: Does it Apply to the Adoption of an Illegitimate Indian Child?, 38 Cath. U. L. Rev., 511, 534 (1989) ("In light of the legislative history of the ICWA, the existing Indian family theory is thus contrary to the intent of Congress.” (footnotes omitted)). The EIF is a judicially created exception to the application of the ICWA. See In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy L., 231 Kan. 199, 643 P.2d 168, 175 (1982), overruled by In the Matter of A.J.S., 288 Kan. 429, 204 P.3d 543 (2009) (<HOLDING>). In so holding, we join the majority of our
holding that a petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law holding the purpose of the icwa was not to dictate that an illegitimate infant who has never been a member of an indian home or culture and probably never would be should be removed from its primary cultural heritage and placed in an indian environment over the express objections of its nonindian mother recognizing that a broad definition of stolen is consistent with the guidelines purposes and finding that the enhancement was properly applied where a defendant found a gun that was lost or mislaid by its owner who never authorized anyone to take the gun never sold it and never gave it away as a gift holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance