Here.
Though not mentioned in the article, Kate Fort and Peter Vicaire (VA, MSU ILPC alum) provided a 25 minute presentation on Native veterans, servicemembers, and ICWA at this event.
Author: Kate Fort
The Guardian Article on ICWA
Fairly long read here.
Hanna is representing two South Dakota tribes in a class action lawsuit filed against state officials for systematically violating the act. Last week, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issues updated ICWA guidelines for state courts for the first time since 1979, specifically citing the lawsuit.
In December, US attorney general Eric Holder announced a new initiative to “actively identify state-court cases where the US can file briefs opposing the unnecessary and illegal removal of Indian children from their families and their tribal communities.” Holder promised to strengthen the act by ensuring compliance with the federal law with the caveat that “barriers erected over centuries of discrimination will not be surmounted overnight.”
Many native families and advocates say the commitment is long overdue. After decades of assimilation-oriented policies, ICWA was passed in 1978. By then, one in four Native American children were removed from their families and placed in boarding schools, adoption or foster care placements.
Despite the law’s intentions, the removal rate of all American Indian children increased to 35% over the following decade, 85% of whom were placed in non-Indian homes. Thirty-five years later, these children remain staggeringly overrepresented in state foster care placements across the country.
Thanks to MM for the heads up.
Victoria Sweet on Trafficking and Alaska
Victoria Sweet, now of NCJFCJ, formerly of the ILPC and MSU Law, was interviewed on KTVA about trafficking and resource exploitation as part of the Alaska Institute for Justice Rural Safety and Justice Conference.
Here.
Michigan COA Opinion On ICWA, MIFPA and Adoptive Couple
Here.
Big case out of Michigan’s Court of Appeals on an adoption with a very complicated fact pattern. The case was argued by MSU Law/ILPC alum Karrie Wichtman. The case held that MIFPA’s placement preferences in an adoption hold, even while ICWA’s failed under Adoptive Couple. It should also be noted that this was the analysis Jack Trope & Addie Smith followed in their article on Adoptive Couple and state ICWA laws.
MIFPA differs from ICWA in that it does not give a preference to eligible parties over ineligible parties. Rather, MIFPA requires that, absent good cause, the adoptive placement must be either with a member of the child’s extended family, a member of the Indian child’s tribe, or an Indian family, in that “order of preference.” MCL 712B.23(2). The record demonstrates that the Arbutantes have no familial connection to KMN; they are not connected to the Tribe, and they are not an Indian family. Therefore, absent a good cause finding, MIFPA precluded the trial court from placing KMN with the Arbutantes.
Unfortunately, the COA did not reinstate the abuse and neglect petition that started the case in the first place, leaving the child in legal limbo.
Job Opening for Fredicks Peebles & Morgan, Omaha Office
The UPDATED BIA ICWA Guidelines
From the website here. Press release here.
The new Guidelines, not updated since 1979, look really good. For example, there are fifteen examples of active efforts, which are explicitly separated out from ASFA findings. There is some clear language around determining putative fathers. They clarified 1922’s emergency removal provisions. They took out the “advanced stage of the proceedings” exception for transfer to tribal court. And quoting now,
There is no exception to the application of ICWA based on the so-called “existing Indian family doctrine.”
Thank you to everyone for all of the work on this. This is huge.
Also, thanks to C.N. for the heads up.
Additional Call-in For Tribes on AFCARS Proposed Rules
If you missed Friday’s call, here is another opportunity to call in. In addition, the government is taking written comments on the rule changes through April 10. This is a chance to get the federal government to add ICWA-related reporting requirements to AFCARS, which applies to states and some tribes. By adding ICWA reporting requirements, the federal government has the opportunity to force states to better track ICWA compliance.
Colleagues:
As we announced earlier this week, the Children’s Bureau will hold national informational calls with stakeholders, states and tribal representatives on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, February 9, 2015.
The first call with states and stakeholders was held on Wednesday, February 18th. The second call for states and stakeholders will take place on Friday, February 20, 2015 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. Eastern.
We are pleased to announce that we have added a second informational call for tribal representatives. The two informational calls with tribal representatives will take place on Friday, February 20, 2015 from 3:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern and Wednesday, March 4, 2015 from 3:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern.
Attached is the presentation that we use during the calls. This presentation is the same for all calls and will be available on the Children’s Bureau website shortly. The agendas with updated call-in information are attached. The content of the agendas has not changed.
This is a reminder that these calls provide an overview of the NPRM for informational purposes only. We will not take questions during any of the calls. If you wish to comment on the NPRM, please submit comments to www.regulations.gov on or before April 10, 2015. The text of the NPRM can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-09/pdf/2015-02354.pdf
Please forward this information to interested parties.
ICWA Notice Case Out of New Jersey
Here.
To minimize the delay in securing permanency and stability for Ann, the trial court shall ensure that the notices are sent forthwith. The judgment terminating parental rights shall be deemed affirmed if after being served with the requisite notices under the ICWA: (1) no tribe responds to the notices within the time provided under the ICWA; (2) no tribe determines within the time allotted under the ICWA that Ann is an Indian child as defined by the ICWA; or (3) the court determines, after the tribes have been given an opportunity to intervene, that the ICWA does not to apply to this matter. If Ann is determined to be an Indian child under the ICWA, the judgment terminating parental rights shall be vacated and the trial court shall hold further proceedings consistent with the ICWA. All proceedings shall be conducted as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the overarching goal of attaining permanency for Ann.
Call for Presentations for NAICJA Annual Conference
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.