Here is the complaint.
This case mirrors the ongoing Doe v. Jesson case (where Mille Lacs defeated the preliminary injunction, and we are currently waiting for a decision on summary judgment). Filed after we wrote the ICWA Legal Defense memo discussing the other three ongoing cases, this case involves a voluntary adoption, the Oklahoma state ICWA, and Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The arguments involve right to privacy, and due process and equal protection concerns.
In February 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published its revisions to the Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings. The new guidelines address areas of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) non-compliance that have occurred over the past 36 years. In March 2015, the BIA announced its intent to advance further reform by proposing for the first time ever, legally binding federal regulations, Regulations for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings, to govern the implementation of ICWA in state courts and agencies. The BIA received over 2,100 public comments during the notice and comment period that closed mid- May. The BIA will review these comments and then promulgate final regulations, likely by early spring 2016. A network of ICWA opponents has responded to the reforms by filing multiple lawsuits challenging the guidelines and ICWA’s constitutionality.
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and the ICWA Appellate Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law—collectively known as the ICWA Defense Project—are working collaboratively to defend ICWA and the long overdue reforms to it introduced this year. This memo will summarize the pending litigation and describe some of the legal and communications strategies these partner organizations have developed to inform, advance, and unify a coordinated effort across Indian Country to respond to these attacks.
Also, here is the NICWA Board Resolution and
talking points for conversations with state Attorneys General.
The Feds wanted to move the case to Arizona (the location of Goldwater v. Washburn, the class action case).
Order here.
Pleadings:
MotiontoTransfer_MemoinSupport
Here is the Government’s answer to the initial complaint: 43 – Answer
The plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment before time had run for the Government to respond to the initial complaint:
PartialSummaryJudgment_MotioninSupport
Documents filed in this case are also all being kept here (under the “Kathryn E. Fort” tab at the top of Turtle Talk’s main page).
Here.
Among other things, this case demonstrates some of the confusion going on in the courts about WHEN certain provisions of ICWA are required. Must there be a qualified expert witness at disposition hearings? What if the court makes a finding about returning a child to a parent at a disposition hearing? And finally, who is responsible for getting QEW testimony?
(The answer to the last one is the State. Not the tribe, not the parent, and it’s not waive-able [though that happens] since it’s the evidentiary burden of the State to have a QEW who agrees with termination or foster care.)
Here.
The purpose of this funding opportunity announcement is to support the creation of effective practice model partnerships between state courts and/or Court Improvement Program, state public child welfare agency and a tribe, group of tribes, or tribal consortia, including both the tribal child welfare agency and tribal court for effective implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 (Pub.L. 95-608).
Demonstration sites will be required to jointly develop protocols and practices to promote effective and timely:
– Identification of Indian children;
– Notice to tribes;
– Tribal participation as parties in hearings involving Indian children;
– Tribal intervention in dependency cases;
– Transfer of ICWA cases to tribal courts; and
– Placement of Indian children according to tribal preferences.Partnership models must be co-created by states and tribes, jointly implemented, and designed to generate and capture clear, measurable outcomes such as:
– Compliance with identification methods;
– The number of Indian children identified;
– Length of time from removal or petition filed until identification is made;
– Number of notices sent;
– Length of time from identification until notice sent (state measure)
– Number of notices received (tribal measure)
– Length of time for tribal intervention or participation; (tribal measure)
– Number of cases in which a tribe intervenes; (joint measure)
– Number of transfers; (joint measure); and
– Number of Indian children placed according to tribal placement preferences (joint measure).
Here. The case cites to the In re K.S. case here.
The court found a way to splice the burden of proof issue, finding that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard only applies to the finding that continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, not to the termination of parental rights.
Here. From Kalamazoo County.
Of note: There are six tribes in Michigan alone that should be noticed if a parent family in a “Chippewa tribe,” and DHHS noticed one of them. MIFPA requires the notice of the tribe in the county where the case arises, though the Pokagon Band service area does not include Kzoo county, while the other two (unnoticed) Potawatomi tribes do cover the county. Finally, it’s not clear from the opinion why Cherokee was noticed at all.
There is no question that the ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements were triggered early in these proceedings when father indicated at an April 2013 preliminary hearing that he might have some family membership—specifically, through his brother—in the “Chippewa tribe.” There is some indication in the record that respondent-mother also claimed potential Indian heritage, although it is unclear what tribes, if any, she identified. Because “sufficiently reliable information” of possible Indian heritage was provided, the trial court had “reason to know” that an Indian child could be involved, thus triggering the ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements. 25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1); In re Morris, 491 Mich at 109.
The record indicates that DHS sent notifications to several different tribes, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. DHS also sent a notification to the Midwest Bureau of Indian Affairs. On June 18, 2013, both the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians responded and indicated that the child was not eligible for membership. The Cherokee Nation also responded with a request for more family information, although there is no indication that further information was thereafter provided. There is also no indication that the remaining tribes or the Bureau of Indian Affairs responded. Based on the responses that had been received, the trial court indicated at a November 2013 review hearing that the ICWA/MIFPA inquiry was “at an end.”
We conclude that the record sufficiently evidences DHS’s compliance with the ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements. DHS sent notifications to several tribes, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On appeal, father does not identify any other tribes that should have been notified. Moreover, while father takes issue with the fact that DHS apparently never provided further information to the Cherokee Nation, he does not identify what further information could have been provided, nor does he argue that he provided the information requested to DHS but that DHS failed to forward it to the Cherokee Nation. Moreover, we note that DHS does not have an affirmative responsibility “to conduct independent research to obtain a parent’s detailed genealogical information.” In re Morris (On Remand), 300 Mich App 95, 105; 832 NW2d 419 (2013). Finally, despite father’s argument to the contrary, the trial court did in fact make a conclusive determination that the child was not an Indian child by noting that the issue was “at an end” and by leaving unchecked, in its subsequent orders, the box indicating that the proceedings involved an Indian child. There was no plain error affecting substantial rights.
Here is DHHS’s map of tribal service areas in Michigan.
Here. Out of the Second Appellate Division, L.A. County. The State has the ongoing duty to send updated notices when they receive additional information.
The issue presented in this case is whether there is a duty under the ICWA to send updated notices to the relevant tribes when additional information regarding the child‟s ancestors (such as previously omitted birthdates, aliases, and/or alternate spellings) is obtained after the original ICWA notices were sent. We conclude there is such a duty. Because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) in this case failed to send updated notices after it obtained additional information, we reverse the order terminating the parental rights of appellant W. H. (mother) with regard to her daughter, I.B.,2 for the limited purpose of compliance with the ICWA.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.