This is a very long decision, but the court’s discussion of appealability of the order is an interesting one.
Author: Kate Fort
Koi Nation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior [Restored Lands Exception]
Unpublished Nebraska Court of Appeals Case on Active Efforts (ICWA).
Here.
We rarely post unpublished ICWA cases because otherwise that’s all we would do. However, in this case involving an analysis of active efforts, the court found that:
Efforts made in this case included facilitating supervised visits, providing family support hours, drug testing, offering parenting classes to Nathaniel, placing Aviyanah in a NICWA-compliant foster home, and taking steps to enroll Aviyanah in the Rosebud Sioux tribe. Additionally, Nathaniel was provided transportation to visitations and during his job search.
Emphasis added.
This is not an active effort. This is the minimum requirement of 25 U.S.C. 1915 (placement preferences).
Article Out of Colorado on Keeping Kids in Foster Care in the Same School
While this article doesn’t talk about Native children populations, this is an aspect of foster care I always teach, and often law students find it surprising that children are moved out of their school district (and related sports teams, academic teams, IEPs, etc. etc.) when they are removed from their home. Federal law (not ICWA) requires kiddos who go into foster care to stay in the same school system, and yet:
When children are taken from their parents and placed in foster care, or when they change foster homes, caseworkers are required to convene a “best-interest determination” to decide whether the child should switch schools or stay put. The meeting includes teachers and school staff, parents, and in some cases, the child.
According to a state data sample of children who changed schools, that meeting happened before the school switch just 11 percent of the time in Colorado last year. More often than not, the meeting happened after the student had already transferred or didn’t happen at all.
Emphasis added. And this is in a state where the legislature ALLOCATED FUNDING for this federal requirement. To bring it into the ICWA world, while required by a separate federal law, I might still consider it active efforts to keep a kiddo in the same school district. It’s also just confounding to me the number of things required by both state and federal law that just simply do not happen in these cases (just in case you wondered what has Kate Fort cranky today. Also, this report which should be a totally different post about parents and active efforts and incarceration).
2018 ICWA by the Numbers
Here’s our annual contribution to the ICWA data discussion. I’m nearing to the final set of 2018 ICWA cases. A note on the data–these are cases that are on Westlaw and/or Lexis Nexis, and ICWA (or state equivalent) was litigated. I collect the case name, the date, the court, the state, whether the case is reported (also called published) or not, the top two issues, up to three named tribes, the outcome of the case, and who appealed the case. I’m also still cleaning some of these numbers, so take this as it is–a quick and dirty survey of the cases.
These are standard state court ICWA cases, and do not include any of the ongoing federal litigation. This is our fourth year writing this post (2015 and 2016 and 2017). Last year Addie Smith and I managed to get a survey completed and published for 2017. This year, we are dreadfully behind, but are still planning to have this into the American Indian Law Journal later this month. If you know we are missing a case based on the numbers, and it’s publicly available, *please* send it to me [fort at law.msu.edu] so we can add it. I’m also happy to answer questions at the same email.
There were 206 appealed ICWA cases this year, down 7 from last year. However, there were 50 reported cases this year, which is nearly 20 more than last year. As always, California leads the states with 125 cases, 9 were reported. Alaska is second with 11, 3 reported. Montana had 10, including 7 reported, which is up considerably from last year. Colorado had 8, 7 reported, as did Michigan with 2 reported. Arkansas had 6, with 5 reported, and Arizona, Ohio, and Texas all had four (1, 3, 1 reported, respectively). Illinois had three (finally) though reported none of them, and Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Washington all had two (only Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota reported their cases). Finally the following states had 1 appellate ICWA case: Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, North Dakota.
In California, the cases further breakdown as follows. The Second District and Third District both reported 2 cases, and the Fourth District reported 5 for a total of nine. The remaining 116 cases are spread through out the state, thought the Fourth, Second, and First have the highest number of appealed cases, followed by the Third, Fifth, and Sixth with the fewest. California is the only state where we track by appellate districts at this time.
Supreme Courts reported ICWA decisions in 17 cases this year, including in Alaska (3), Montana (7), Michigan (1), Nebraska (1), Nevada (1), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (2), (of course some of these states don’t have an intermediate court of appeals–the remaining 11 unreported Supreme Court cases all come out of Alaska and Montana, for example).
125 of the cases affirmed the lower court, while 79 were remanded or reversed.
Top litigated issues across both reported and unreported cases were as follows: Notice (86), Inquiry (43), Placement Preferences (9), Active Efforts (13), Termination of Parental Rights (18), Foster Care Proceeding (4), Transfer to Tribal Court (1), and QEW (1). Also the cases determining if there is an Indian child are up (7), and cases involving California’s Tribal Customary Adoption popped up (4). Only 2 cases involved placement preferences this year. This year 44 of the Notice cases and 23 of the Inquiry cases were remanded for proper notice. The Notice cases are down from last year, and the other issues are up.
59 different tribes were named as the first named tribe in a case. In 27 cases the tribe was unknown (parent did not know name of tribe). In 24, the tribe was unnamed (court did not record name of tribe in the opinion).
Finally, of all the cases, not a single one was appealed by a tribe (that I can find). Cases were appealed by mom, dad, mom AND dad, the guardian ad litem, aunt, prospective adoptive couple, and the state.
Cases I have been specifically highlighting in my presentations this year are as follows:
Colorado (Notice and Appellate Instruction)
Colorado (Foster Care Proceeding)
Ohio (transfer to tribal court)
South Dakota (application of Texas v. Zinke/Brackeen v. Zinke)
Other major ICWA stories this year that are not reflected in this post include, obviously, Texas v. Zinke, the dismissal of the Oglala Sioux class action case by the Eighth Circuit, and the spread of ICWA pro hac vice rules.
Maine Supreme Judicial Court Affirms Denial of Intervention in Child Welfare Case
Here.
The State removed non-member children from their tribal member mother, and opposed the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s request for intervention. While intervention is one of right under ICWA, because these children are non-member children, the Court found that ICWA did not apply. In addition, the Court denied the Tribe’s request for permissive intervention in a cursory paragraph. The Court based much of its interpretation and decision on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, making it fairly specific to tribes in Maine. Regardless, the reasoning is frustrating, especially for a permissive intervention, which is apparently allowed “when a ‘[nonparty’s] claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common’ and intervention will not ‘unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.’” M.R. Civ. P. 24(b).
The dissent, pointing out that “In the matter before us, for the safety of the children, the District Court (Calais, D. Mitchell, J.) rejected the request to place the children in a kinship placement with their maternal grandmother. Instead, it authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a foster placement for the children off the reservation and with caregivers who are not related to the children and are not members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe”, therefore “[w]ith the prospect of the children being removed from their Passamaquoddy relatives and the reservation community, the Passamaquoddy Tribe sought to intervene as a matter of right or, alternatively, with the court’s permission.” The dissent also acknowledges the Tribe’s assertion that”their participation in decisions related to the placement and resources available to the children are matters of importance to the court in addressing the needs of the children, whose mother is a member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Tribe’s role, distinct from the role of family members, is important in informing the court of options regarding tribal resources and connections to tribal culture.”
(You had to know I’d end a series of ICWA posts on the case I found the most frustrating.)
Transfer to Tribal Court Decision from Maine Supreme Judicial Court
[¶1] Shirley T. and David W. appeal from an order of the District Court (Portland, Powers, J.) denying their and the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s motions to transfer jurisdiction of this child protection matter to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1901-1963 (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 115-277). Shirley T. and David W. challenge the court’s determination that there is good cause within the meaning of ICWA not to transfer the matter to the Tribal Court. We affirm the court’s denial of the motion to transfer jurisdiction.
The Court essentially used an inconvenient forum analysis, based on the Regulations, Guidelines and numerous other state court opinions.
Grandparent Standing Case in Arizona Court of Appeals
Here.
While the Court of Appeals found that the grandmother didn’t have standing and properly dismissed the case, opinion notes the Tribal Court had already been exercising jurisdiction over the child in a concurrent child custody matter.
Tribal Standing Issue in California Court of Appeals ICWA Decision
Mother next contends the juvenile court’s order granting the Tribe’s petitions for modification, and giving full faith and credit to an amended tribal customary adoption order, must be reversed because the Tribe did not have standing to file section 388 petitions for modification. We reject her contention.
Determination of Indian Child ICWA Case out of Montana Supreme Court
In affidavits supporting the TIA and TLC petitions, Child Protection Specialists (CPS) noted they had no reason to believe that any of the children were subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). However, at a May 2016 show cause hearing, the District Court was notified that ICWA possibly applied to K.J. considering K.J.’s father received benefits from the Arapahoe Tribe. The benefits signaled potential for K.J. to meet the “Indian child” designation of ICWA. Yet, further correspondence with the Arapahoe Tribe conclusively determined that ICWA was inapplicable to K.J. The District Court granted the Department authority to investigate and work with the parents and children.
In October 2016, the Department again filed petitions for adjudication as YINC and TLC for all three children. CPS Mariesa Wallis submitted three identical affidavits in support which included the statement: “To the best of my knowledge and belie[f] the child is an Indian Child subject to [ICWA].” Wallis’ affidavit did not reference specific tribes or details concerning possible tribal affiliations. The petition and accompanying affidavits are the sole documents in the record suggesting J.J.C. or R.G. were Indian children.
Emphasis added. The Court found that ICWA did not apply (actually, that there was no reason to believe the child was an Indian children, which . . . seems like the wrong finding). Assuming, however, the communication with the Tribe was accurate, it is correct for the trial court to follow that determination rather than the state social worker’s affidavit.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.