Author: Kate E. Fort

A Positive ICWA Case Out of California

Kate Fort

We almost never see a positive case out of California. Here is one (In re C.S.), and the words of the juvenile referee Sobel from state court:

The court granted the section 388 petitions filed by mother and father, concluding, “We have an American Indian child. That’s different. We have siblings who are with relatives. That’s different. We have a new baby who has been safely in the mother’s care since the [non-detain] petition was filed. That’s different. So, when you say that the children who are placed with foster parents at birth, that is their parent, the parent that is there night and day, you are correct, in every case, that’s correct. But the point of this is what happens to parents in the part that we call reunification? Where at some point do the parents earn the right to become those people? Where is that transference into being able to be a parent? Now, with the two other children . . . , they are with relatives. Those relatives are glad to step back and be relatives. If they need to adopt, they will. But the fact is they are grandparents. They prefer to be grandparents. I have two parents in complete compliance with their original case plan and American Indian. As to [C.’s older sibling and half-sibling], there’s no question there are changed circumstances here. The issue is best interest and I find it’s in the best interest of [the older sibling and half-sibling] to grant the 388 and place the children home of parents: mom for [the half-sibling and sibling], dad and mom for [the sibling]. We’ve already taken [the baby] off the track [by dismissing the non-detain petition as to her]. . . . [C.] is American Indian. She has three siblings. Those siblings are going home. . . . I am telling you, from my heart, an American Indian child belongs in an American Indian home, especially when that home has siblings in it and parents who are appropriate. There is no question that ICWA requires that I do what is right under ICWA; that I do what’s right for this family, understanding and knowing that C. loves [her de facto parents] both as a primary attachment. . . .    I’m granting mother[’s] and father’s 388 as to C., finding there are changed circumstances and that it is in the child’s best interest to be returned to her parents.”

WaPo Article on Shut Down and Indian Tribes

Kate Fort

Here.

Some tribes intend to fill the gap in federal funds themselves, risking deficits of their own to cushion communities with chronic high unemployment and poverty against the effects of the budget battle.

“Do we just throw kids onto the street, or do we help them? Most likely we’re going to help those families and do whatever we can until this is unresolved,” said Tracy “Ching” King, president of northern Montana’s Fort Belknap Reservation.

But for other tribes, basic services stand to take a direct hit. That includes programs heavily subsidized by federal agencies and others paid for with tribal money that is suddenly unavailable because it’s being held by the Department of Interior, tribal leaders said.

Dissents in the Lift of Stay in Baby Girl Case and Additional Coverage of Proceedings

Kate Fort

From the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Here.

 In addition to Veronica’s interests, the Cherokee Nation has been a party to all of the proceedings in the courts of South Carolina, in the United States Supreme Court, and in the courts of this State. As such, the Cherokee Nation has a direct and substantial interest in seeing that Veronica’s rights as an Indian child and member of the Cherokee Nation are fully protected, including the right to the special best interests determination under the law of the case. It would be virtually impossible for any court to make this special best interests determination without hearing from the Cherokee Nation.

Reif, V.C.J.

 

Everything in the life of Baby Girl has changed since 2011, and therefore, I cannot join the majority’s decision to dissolve the temporary stay and to deny original jurisdiction.1 Although this is a complicated case, we should accept our legal responsibility to follow established law in making a determination having such a profound impact on the life of this child.

Gurich, J.

H/T Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Today’s Tulsa World coverage here (including a discussion of the contempt charges in South Carolina).

Blatant Notice Disregard in California ICWA Case

Kate Fort

Here. The decision is unpublished. It isn’t just cases where the parent is unsure of their tribal affiliation where this is happening.

In August 2011, at the outset of this case, John told the social worker that he was “a member of the Mission Digueno Tribe[,] a band of the Kumeyaay Indians,” and had a roll number. John also said that he had “Native American Ancestry with the Chumash Tribe in the Santa Ynez reservation….” In his Parentage Inquiry, he declared he had “Chumash and Digueno” heritage. In his Parental Notification of Indian Status, he declared he might have Indian ancestry through a Kumeyaay Tribe and a “Mission Digueno / Chumash” band. In September, John’s sister gave the social worker the roll number shared by all family members.
The social worker sent incomplete ICWA notices to the tribes. Most of the notices listed the roll number only in connection with a relative, did not explain how that relative was related to Matthew and did not explain that the whole family shared the roll number. Most of the notices omitted known information that John and other paternal relatives had received medical and dental treatment at an Indian health clinic. Most of the notices listed a Chumash Tribe association only for the paternal great-grandmother.
None of the responses to the ICWA notices were positive. The court found that ICWA did not apply. In May 2013, the court terminated parental rights.

Briefs Filed in Grand Ronde et al v. Jewell

Kate Fort

Grand Ronde’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Grand Ronde Exhibit One
Clark County et al Motion for Summary Judgment

Previous coverage of the case here.

Notice of Annual NAICJA Meeting

Kate Fort

Here is the announcement for the National American Indian Court Judges Association Annual Meeting and proposed bylaws.

Notice here.

Proposed bylaws here.

Coverage of Transfer of Veronica to Adoptive Couple

Kate Fort3 Comments

Tulsa World here.

SCOTUSblog here.

Indian Country Today here.

Tulsa World: Discussions in Baby Girl Case End Without Settlement (Updated)

Kate Fort

Here.

Before proceeding with the appeal, the state’s high court required last week’s mediation conference at the Court of Civil Appeals in Tulsa, where the families spent five days in negotiations and returned to the courthouse Monday morning for less than an hour.

The case now goes back to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

ETA: Additional information with statement from Cherokee Nation Attorney General. It appears that the OK Supreme Court lifted the stay. Here.

“This order, just like any other order from a foreign jurisdiction needs to be filed for domestication with the Cherokee Nation District Court,” said Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree. “There is a conflicting Cherokee Nation order concerning a Cherokee Nation citizen on Cherokee Nation land. We are a sovereign nation with a valid and historic court system.

“As Attorney General, I will require that our court system be honored and respected. I took an oath when assuming this office to uphold the laws and constitution of the Cherokee Nation and the United States. Nowhere in that oath is it required that I defend the laws of South Carolina.”

Article on Judge Thorne’s Retirement from the Bench

Kate Fort

Here.

As a side note, Judge Thorne spent the last few days in Montana, doing an incredible job encouraging the tribes and state to work together to find ways to achieve better outcomes for Indian kids. Given the work he plans on doing in his retirement, we think “retirement” should really be in quotes. Which is lucky for all of us.

Tulsa World: Still No Negotiated Settlement

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.