Here. Straightforward case, but an example of a clan mother from a tribe (Tuscarora) in New York working with California social services to find multiple placements for the baby.
Author: Kate Fort
In-House Tribal Attorney Posting: Stillaguamish Tribe
STILLAGUAMISH TRIBAL ATTORNEY
The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, a sovereign, federally-recognized Tribe, is looking to hire an in-house Tribal Attorney with a minimum of three years’ experience in federal Indian law, to serve the Tribe as it collectively defines its future for generations to come.
The in-house legal work is very diverse and challenging, but the primary focus of this position will be on employment law in Indian Country, commercial transactions, Indian Gaming, Tribal economic development, and realty.
The Tribe is looking for someone with excellent people skills and the ability to work collegially, flexibly and creatively. An interest in conflict transformation and alternative dispute resolution would be a plus. A strong ethical character and an egalitarian willingness to work hard as part of a small legal department team is important. A sense of humor, a flexible temperament, a practical sensibility, creativity and intellectual and philosophical curiosity are also highly desired!
Indian preference will be exercised in the hiring of this position in accordance with the Tribe’s Personnel Policies.
APPLICATION: The Tribe would like to hire someone for this position as soon as possible, but will take the time it needs to find the right candidate. Please submit the following:
Application for Employment (you may request this application on the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians website: http://www.stillaguamish.com/)
Cover letter including salary requirements.
Résumé or CV with the names of at least three professional references.
Legal writing sample.
Please send the above to Human Resources at the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, PO Box 277, Arlington, WA 98223 and a copy addressed to the Director, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Legal Department, PO Box 277, Arlington, WA 98223. Phone: Human Resources Department at 360-652-7362.
Navajo Boy Sent Home for Having Long Hair on First Day of School
Here is one of many articles.
And here is what the Fifth Circuit has already said about such nonsense regarding the treatment of another 5-year-old in Texas:
A Native American boy and his parents challenge a school district’s requirement that he wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. We agree with the district court that the requirement offends a sincere religious belief and hold it invalid under Texas law.
And as @NativeApprops pointed out, one might also check out the name of the district and the mascot where this happened.
Active Efforts Case Out of Washington Court of Appeals
Here.
Despite Louch’s argument that visitation is a remedial service under ICWA, that term is not defined in the federal or state version of ICWA. Louch cites no state or federal case holding that visitation itself is a remedial service for purposes of ICWA. Visitation as part of a parenting class or other therapy might be part of a remedial service, but consistent with T.H., visitation in and of itself is not “remedial.”
Finally, even assuming visitation is a remedial service, “ICWA does not require the State to continue making active efforts to remedy parental deficiencies at the expense of physical or emotional damage to the child.”43 Numerous courts have held that active efforts under the federal ICWA does not mean persisting with futile efforts.44***
He also claims that, due to his severe mistrust of the child welfare system, the Department was required to “determine a different approach” to working with him in order to engage him in services.48 But services were coordinated through the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and Louch cites no authority supporting his argument that the Department did not engage in active efforts by failing to provide access to the specific cultural activities referenced above.4
According to the opinion, the child in this case was placed with an American Indian family who are also taking care of her two other siblings.
NPR Story on Cigarette Smoking Prevention Policies on Reservations
Here.
Walking onto the gaming floor at the Twin Arrows Casino near Flagstaff, Ariz., is a sensory-rich experience, with winning bells and slot machine jingles a constant. But in addition to hearing the sounds of the gaming floor, visitors also smell cigarette smoke.
The Smoke-Free Arizona Act doesn’t apply to this casino, located just inside the southern borders of the Navajo Nation. That means smoking in an enclosed public space is legal.
But in some communities on the reservation, that’s beginning to change. Dozens of Navajo Nation communities passed local clean air resolutions this year. The measures ban tobacco use in government buildings and workplaces.
The Oso Vista Ranch Project, a youth development organization in northwestern New Mexico, is working to prevent Native American youth from smoking. In May, the group persuaded the Crownpoint chapter to ban smoking in public buildings, making it the first Navajo government entity to do so.
2015 Summer Law Clerk Position for Fredericks Peebles & Morgan
Here.
FPM is seeking applications from second year law students for 2015 Summer Law Clerks for its offices in Louisville, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; Sacramento, California; and Washington, D.C. Applicants must be enrolled in an ABA accredited law school. Experience or coursework in tribal and Federal Indian Law required. Applicants must also possess excellent analytical, research and communication skills, and the ability to work well independently and as a team in a fast-paced environment. FPM offers a competitive hourly wage for a 10 – 12-week summer position.
Expert Witness ICWA Case Out of Alaska
Here.
Applying the correct meaning of the phrase “professional person having substantial education in the area of his or her specialty,” we hold that Cosolito and Kirchoff should have been qualified as experts under the third BIA guideline. As social workers, both were “professional persons.” Both had “substantial education in the area of [her] specialty”: master’s degrees in social work, internships in relevant subject areas as required for their degrees, agency training, and continuing professional education. The experience of both witnesses further demonstrated the required “expertise beyond the normal social worker qualifications.” Cosolito described her work as an OCS supervisor overseeing hundreds of cases, identifying safety threats, and having ultimate responsibility for custody decisions; as an OCS line worker assessing reports of harm; and as a school administrator and social worker in Arizona working with the diverse behavioral and education needs of students and their families. Her testimony demonstrated regular and in-depth exposure to the very types of family and behavioral issues that were central to Candace’s case, including the possibility that Candace would be assaulted again, be re-traumatized, and engage in more self-destructive behavior.Kirchoff appeared even more amply qualified to testify about the risks of serious emotional or physical harm if Candace were returned to her home. Kirchoff had a lengthy work history as a mental health clinician, working with children with emotional and behavioral problems in a variety of institutional and agency settings, as well as a private practice of custody investigations and adoption home-studies. As Candace’s own clinician, treating her in both individual and group therapy, Kirchoff was uniquely qualified to testify with authority about Candace’s susceptibility to emotional harm.
Termination ICWA Case Out of Texas Court of Appeals
Here.
The opinion is 28 pages long and the court addresses notice (actual notice was sufficient even if not strictly ICWA compliant), active efforts (happened), state law requirements (harmonious with ICWA), standard of proof (met), jury instructions (adequate), expert witness testimony (was interesting) . . .
Having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the Department proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful, (2) that the continued custody of K.S. by D.S. is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to K.S., and that (3) the finding is supported by testimony from an expert witness. See 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1912(d), (f); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789.
Three Remanded for ICWA Notice Deficiency Cases out of California
Cases from the Second District, the Fourth District and the First District.
From the Second District:
Before the next scheduled hearing on January 31, 2013, DCFS submitted the following documents to the court: signed return receipts for the entities noticed; a letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledging receipt of the ICWA notice but indicating it does not determine tribal eligibility; a letter from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma declining to intervene in the case because there was no evidence T.M. was a descendant of anyone on the Keetoowah Roll based on the information supplied; a letter from the Cherokee Boys Club, Inc., on behalf of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, declining to intervene in the case because T.M. was neither registered nor eligible to register as a member of the tribe based on the information supplied; and a letter from the Cherokee Nation seeking further information. The Cherokee Nation letter asked DCFS to “verify correct spelling of maternal great great grandmother Lual Made [D.], also need her date of birth. Relationship of Eleonora [H.] to the above named child. [¶] We need dates of birth for everyone involved, their relationship to the child or children in question, and maiden names of all females listed. It is impossible to validate or invalidate this claim without more complete information.” (Boldface and capitalization removed.)
At the January 31, 2013 hearing, which was presided over by a different hearing officer than Commissioner Lewis, the court stated the tribes were properly noticed and it had received letters back from the tribes indicating T.M. was not an Indian child. The court found the ICWA did not apply. The court did not acknowledge the Cherokee Nation’s request for further information.
Just spit balling here, but maybe the reason Cherokee Nation puts part of its response in BOLDFACE CAPITALIZATION is to help a state court out, so it doesn’t find ICWA doesn’t apply when it might.
Job Posting for Law Clerk for St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Courts
Announcement here.
Summary:
The Law Clerk for the SRMT Court is responsible for researching and analyzing uniquely intricate, complex and sensitive legal issues and questions for SRMT Judges, assist SRMT Judges in evaluating cases filed with the Court, drafting and preparing proposed orders, decisions and opinions for SRMT Judges, and discussion of pending cases with the SRMT Judges.The Law Clerk will also provide other personal and confidential assistance to the Courts’ Judges.
Qualifications:
- Juris Doctorate degree (JD) from an accredited law school.
- Experience with Tribal governments.
- Work experience in federal Indian Law is preferred.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.