The casebook that had to be rewritten twice in the past four years is finally being published. It should be available in a few weeks, along with a teacher’s manual. If you are interested in a review copy, let me know or request a review copy here. I posted the Table of Contents today.
Here you go!
Sometimes even I am struck dumb by the notice cases:
A second form, dated in 2017 and signed by C.L.B., was also introduced into evidence. C.L.B. testified that his mother had assisted him in completing the 2017 form. On the 2017 form, C.L.B. listed Cherokee and “Ojibwa-(Chippewa)” as the tribes in which he, B.E.B., or one of B.E.B.’s paternal grandparents might have membership.
Star Pope testified that, at the direction of C.L.B., she had inquired of the paternal grandmother of B.E.B. regarding with which tribes C.L.B.’s family might be affiliated. She testified that the paternal grandmother of B.E.B. had informed her that C.L.B. was not affiliated with the Cherokee or Sioux tribes but that she had identified the Chippewa or Ojibwe tribe as a possibility. Pope testified that she had contacted authorities in several different states and that she had eventually been directed to a central location to which, she said, she had mailed a letter requesting information concerning whether B.E.B. would be recognized as an Indian child or have benefits under the ICWA. DHR introduced into evidence a letter dated May 4, 2016, that had been mailed to the ICWA representative from the Chippewa Indians of Mackinac, Michigan . . .
DHR also introduced a letter from the Bay Mills Indian Community dated May 19, 2016, in response to an inquiry from DHR; that letter indicated that B.E.B. was not eligible for membership in the Bay Mills Indian Community.
Here is the information on the June 3 tribal consultation on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. Comments are due June 18.
This year’s version appears to correct the mistakes in the 2018 list. That means it is even more important to share this year’s list of agents for notice.
I get this request a lot, so here is a pdf of a PowerPoint with detailed citations and information for 2018/annual TICA update. If you need a PPT copy, let me know.
Here.
We cannot currently track on a national level in any way how ICWA works, where children who are involved in ICWA cases are placed, what their outcomes are, or how many cases are transferred to tribal court, as examples. There is barely statewide data available, and most of it is on a county-by-county level. As just one example, Michigan is in a federal lawsuit over its data collection system.
I am deeply tired of hearing that tracking this information is simply too burdensome for the states that are putting children in care, and then getting hit in lawsuit after lawsuit with claims that are not supported by any data, but also cannot be refuted by data we refuse to collect.
If your tribe wants to submit comments, there will be model comments available before the deadline of June 18.
This is otherwise known as the Goldwater litigation, the second federal case filed back in 2015 in Arizona.
Documents are here
The Tribe requested transfer and the child’s attorney objected. The trial court did not allow testimony regarding bonding and attachment from the child’s doctor. The Supreme Court held
With or without the 2016 regulations, though, circuit courts need the benefit of a sufficiently developed record to assist in the good cause determination. See A.O., 2017 S.D. 30, ¶ 13, 896 N.W.2d at 656; In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d 598, 601 (S.D. 1993). In both A.O. and M.C., we held that the circuit court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before determining the motion to transfer jurisdiction. In the absence of a developed record, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review concerning the merits of the parties’ claims.
[¶17.] As it relates to this case, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the Tribe’s motion to transfer without hearing the testimony of the child’s physician who was present in the courtroom. Relying upon the impromptu offer of proof by Child’s counsel, the court determined that Dr.
Whitney’s testimony was categorically irrelevant. We disagree.
The Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.