Here is an update in Seaport Loan Products LLC v. Lower Brule Community (N.Y. Supreme Ct.):
63 Lower Brule Motion to Dismiss
77 Adlwych Capital Partners Opposition
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Southcentral Foundation Effort to Force IHS to Fund Suicide Prevention and Other Programs Fails
Here are the materials in Southcentral Foundation v. Roubideaux (D. Alaska):
An excerpt:
Before the Court at Docket 3 is a motion filed by Plaintiff Southcentral Foundation (SCF). Although entitled a motion for a preliminary injunction, SCF is seeking mandamus relief in the form of an order that requires the immediate payment to it from a federal official of additional funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 for the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative (MSPI) and the Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative (DVPI). The Defendant is Yvette Roubideaux, the Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS” or “Defendant”). After this litigation was filed, IHS agreed to pay SCF approximately $1.08 million of the disputed funds. Still disputed is approximately $449,000 in funding. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. Having considered the documents filed with the Court, the law, and the arguments of counsel, the Court will deny the motion for the reasons set forth herein.
New Contract Support Costs Claims against Indian Health Service
Alaska Newspaper Poll on Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Here.
Oneida Dancers at Packers Halftime Show
Here.
South Dakota SCT Denies Habeas Relief in Fast Horse v. Weber
Here is the opinion.
Third Nooksack Suit over Disenrollment Filed; DOI Petition Distributed
Here are new updates in the Nooksack disenrollment saga. First, a third tribal court suit, Adams v. Kelly:
Adams v. Kelly Complaint For Prospective Equitable Relief
Second, a letter to Interior Secretary Jewell on the Secretarial election coming up:
October 16 2013 Letter and Petition to Secretary Sally Jewell
Ghost Bear v. US: Federal Habeas Denied
Sand Creek Descendants File Brief in Support of Historic Claims
Here is the opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss in Flute v. United States (D. Colo.):
California COA Decides ICWA Notice Appeal
Here is the opinion in In re Brianna M.:
An excerpt:
Francisco contends finally that he is a member of the Gila River Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe. He urges that DCFS therefore was required by ICWA to provide notice of the proceedings to the tribe, and to give the tribe the opportunity to intervene. DCFS concedes that ICWA notice was not properly given and does not object to a remand with directions to the juvenile court to order DCFS to provide proper notice.Pursuant to 25 United States Code section 1912(a), “[i]n any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, [DCFS] shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.” Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (a)(1) similarly provides that notice to the tribe “shall be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.”
Because DCFS failed to provide proper ICWA notice, we remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to direct DCFS to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. However, we decline to reverse the jurisdictional and dispositional orders because there is not yet a sufficient showing that Brianna is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. If after proper inquiry and notice a tribe determines Brianna is an Indian child, any interested party may petition the court to invalidate any orders that violated ICWA. (See In re Hunter W. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1467, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 355; In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192, 199–200, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 110.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.