Final teams Ryan McCarthy and Josh Peterson from William Mitchell and Jordan Inafuku and Kelsey Anderson from University of Hawaii.
The panel:
The judges panel (in no particular order), Gary Pitchlyn, Arvo Mikkanen, Ryland Rivas, Jose Francisco Cali Tzay, Lindsay Robertson, and Phil Lujan with the teams.
The winning team from William Mitchell:
NNALSA and rules committee:
William Mitchell v. Hawaii in the final round:
The incredibly kind Dustin Kuipers and Daniel Knudson (with Kate Fort) at the Oklahoma City airport before the predicted ice storm.
Alex Vian, Joey Lenzmeier, and Ann Tweedy
The Reading Room at the library.
Lindsay Robertson, Barbara Creel, and John LaVelle on the second floor of the reading room.
Cornell’s team, with the incomparable Rose Nimkiins Petoskey. Teammates Cheyenne Sanders, Alex Kitson, and Nadine Thornton.
Michigan State teams Stephen Raslich, Tamera Begay, Emily Smith, and Sarah Donnelly
MSU team Chantal Crawley and Nellie David
University of Michigan teams:
Shay Elbaum and Hunter Cox
Colin Kavanaugh and Whitney Robinson
NNALSA President/MSU student John Simermeyer
Coverage here.
B.C. First Nations won a major victory Friday when a Federal Court judge granted an injunction blocking the opening this year of a herring fishery on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
The decision came after an internal memo revealed Fisheries Minister Gail Shea overruled recommendations of scientists in her own department.
If anyone has a copy of the injunction, we’d like to post it.
Here.
We acknowledge that there was an effort to comply with the notice requirements. On October 14, 2011, petitioner sent a notification for each child, identifying the children’s tribal affiliation as Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa and/or Blackfoot, to respondents, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa, and the Midwest Bureau of Indian Affairs in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The notices state that they were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. However, there is no return receipt in the record before us.
Here.
With some troubling language, given this was an abuse and neglect case:
fn 4
In this appeal, the parties have not directly addressed whether respondent father ever had “custody” of the children, or whether respondent father is part of an “Indian family” within the meaning of ICWA or MIFPA. For purposes of this appeal only, we assume that respondent father was a parent from whose custody the Indian children were removed, within the meaning of 25 USC 1914 and MCL 712B.39. We further assume that mother, respondent father, and the children comprise an “Indian family” within the meaning of ICWA and MIFPA. Cf. In re SD, 236 Mich App 240, 244; 599 NW2d 772 (1999) (holding that no “active efforts” were required when the family had already been broken up at the time the proceedings began); Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl, ___ US ___; 133 S Ct 2552, 2563-2564; 186 L Ed 2d 729 (2013) (same).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.