An effort to persuade a federal court to review a state court action in an Indian Child Welfare Act case partially succeeds in Kirk v. Baldovinos (N.D. Cal.):
Alameda County Motion to Dismiss
California Response to Order to Show Cause
The only federal claim remaining is the ineffective assistance of ICW counsel:
Petitioner further alleges that she was prejudiced by her uninformed signing of the waiver, because the Superior Court found the allegations in the petition to be true without holding a hearing on the matter. While it is difficult, at the pleading stage, to estimate the likelihood that a hearing on the merits would have affected the outcome of the dependency proceeding, the Court finds Petitioner’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim that a reasonable probability of a different outcome resulted from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, even under the Strickland standard. See In re Darlice C., 105 Cal.App. 4th 459, 462 (Cal.App.3d Dist.2003) (finding that parent stated a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that attorney failed to raise a California Code section providing that “juvenile court may find termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the minor where there would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship ….) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added); accord Doe v. Mann, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1240 (N.D.Cal.2003)(finding allegations that counsel “never met with [client] after the initial appointment, did not discuss the substantive issues of the case with her and did not consult her about her wishes for Jane … are sufficient to state a claim for violation of section 1912(b).”) aff’d 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.2005). Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has adequately alleged a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Turtle Talk 
This case is ongoing, and is now in the Ninth Circuit seeking an Emergency Stay under Rule 27-3 because the district court in a reversal of fortune, determined Kirk’s Summary Judgment by failing to first determine IF the evidence offered by respondents was admmissible, rather the district court accepted their evidence, “inadmissible hearsay” in granting the County’s cross-motion for summary judgment….the briefs are flying and the case number is 12-15372 (9th Cir.) an initial administrative stay is expected before March 20, Kirk could use with some Amicus briefs because her pro bono counsel abandoned hher, claiming there was no reson to seek reconsideration and they were not going to appeal, also complaining that they wished to keep there argumment extremely narrow because they had over 700 hours invested, more than 300K had actual money been spent, it is starting to appear there only reason to take the case was for a tax write off at best for the new to the bar attorney Cohn to cut his teeth.
SEE also cases 10-cv-005797-LHK civil rights, and 12-cv-00802-LHK REMOVAL of state court proceedings because of racial discrimination as found in State law that deny’s and Petitioner cannot enforce the ICWA designed to protect her race, SEE Georgia v. Rachel, US Supreme Court