Article here.
The tribal resolution, which passed unanimously, states: “In any adoptive placement of a Cherokee child under state law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with a biological parent or parents; a member of the child’s extended family; other members of the Cherokee Nation; or other Indian families.”
Here.
Via Jody Porter (@cbcreporter)
Here.
Report here.
The Indian Law Resource Center recently released, Restoring Safety to Native Women and Girls and Strengthening Native Nations ─ A Report on Tribal Capacity for Enhanced Sentencing and Restored Criminal Jurisdiction. The report examines existing literature on the readiness among Indian nations to exercise enhanced sentencing authority under TLOA and fuller criminal jurisdiction over all perpetrators of violent crimes under VAWA 2013 or other future legislation. It also identifies challenges facing Indian nations in exercising such authority and how some Indian nations are moving forward to increase their capacity to safeguard Native women in their communities. The report, available at http://indianlaw.org/content/restoring-safety-native-women-and-girls-and-strengthening-native-nations, concludes with ten recommendations aimed at ending violence against Native women and girls and strengthening the ability of Indian nations to address this crisis. We hope that the report will guide the Center, and perhaps others, in better assisting Indian and Alaska Native nations to make their communities safe places.
But does not require contemporaneous active efforts when ordering one.
Here is the opinion.
Given our conclusion that the guardianship was a “foster care placement” under ICWA, we now consider whether the juvenile court was required under ICWA to make an “active efforts” finding at the proceeding in which that guardianship was established. Mother argues that, because the guardianship is a foster care placement, the juvenile court was required to include an active efforts finding in the guardianship judgment. Although we disagree with DHS’s argument that the guardianship was not a “foster care placement,” we conclude nonetheless that DHS satisfied ICWA’s “active efforts” requirement at the 2011 permanency hearing. Therefore, the juvenile court was not required to make an “active efforts” finding in the guardianship judgment.
Here.
We conclude that Cameron and Amanda failed to timely
appeal from the orders denying the motions to transfer the cases to tribal court. As such, this court is without jurisdiction to address Cameron and Amanda’s argument that the juvenile court erred in that respect. Upon our de novo review, we find that the State presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of Cameron’s and Amanda’s parental rights to S, L, H, and J was in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
Here.
Listen here.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Hill has mixed feelings about the concept of the American dream. He believes he’s attained his — but that it’s been out of reach for most Native Americans.
Take the fact that Native Americans have been the source of endless mockery, he says. “They make fun of the way we dance, we sing, our drum, our names, our religion, our rituals — you name it.”
So one of Hill’s dreams was to turn that humor around. “My whole thing is to get people to laugh with us, not at us,” he says.
Hollywood stereotypes have offered Hill a deep well from which to draw jokes. He re-creates the dialogue from old Westerns, but always gives the Indians the last laugh.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.