Child Welfare

Difficult Case out of California [ICWA]

ilpc

Here

The question of whether Mom could have her child back with his siblings came down to his best interest–which kept him in the guardianship, despite the mom’s sobriety, job, handling a child with cancer, and raising a number of children. The Tribe, fearful of losing contact with the child entirely if they picked a side in the case, supported the mom but also ended up not weighing in on the final decision, instead asking the court to order whoever had the child keep him in contact with the Tribe. But this conclusion from the court is simply heartbreaking. It is not clear the child is related to the guardians, and as such the court equates a biological parent to non-relative foster care in a troublesome way:

We recognize this case was a difficult one for the juvenile court, not least because it was forced to choose between two families, both of whom love minor very much and both of whom may have been able to provide a stable, loving home where he remains connected to his siblings, other relatives, and his tribe. We can only express our hope, as did the juvenile court, that these families can find a way to remain connected in the interest of allowing minor to be loved and cared for by as many people as possible. It is also a difficult case because mother demonstrated her commitment to regaining custody by complying with her case plan, maintaining her sobriety and full employment, and garnering the support of the Department and the Tribe to have minor returned to her care. *** On this record, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s determination that mother failed to meet her burden to demonstrate return to mother’s custody would be in minor’s best interest.

And no, I don’t entirely understand why the court isn’t using much higher ICWA standards here.

ICWA Article in the Deseret News

Kate Fort

Here

SALT LAKE CITY — Over the summer, Shari Pena’s 3-month-old foster son chuckled for the first time when his older sister sneezed, kicking off a new family tradition.

The Penas gathered to celebrate the giggle, a milestone in the child’s Navajo culture. They shared a chicken and rice dish in their West Valley home and took a pinch of salt from the baby’s palm, a gesture symbolizing his generosity.

As the federal law governing child welfare cases for Native American children has withstood recent legal challenges in Utah and in other states, the Penas are among those cheering the victories. The Indian Child Welfare Act sets special standards in the adoption and foster care proceedings and gives preference to Native American families — part of an effort by Congress to correct historical bias against them.

“It’s important that these kids stay in native homes,” Pena said. “We understand one another, our past and our ancestors.”

Pena, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, said certain aspects of Navajo culture mirror her own upbringing in Oklahoma, including a strong focus on family. For newer factors like the first laugh party, she seeks guidance from the child’s biological grandmother and his four foster siblings.

Briefing Complete in Brackeen v. Bernhardt En Banc Petition

ilpc

Documents here.

The Tribes and U.S. did not seek any amicus support in opposing the petition for en banc review.

QEW Case out of the Colorado Court of Appeals [ICWA]

Kate Fort

Here.

The question is whether the parent should have had attorney representation during the interview with the qualified expert witness. This is a really interesting question, especially given that in this case the mother was assigned her own Guardian ad Litem. The Court ultimately held that she did not have the right to representation during the interview and upheld the termination of parental rights.

Jurisdiction Case out of the Arizona Court of Appeals [ICWA, UCCJEA]

ilpc

Here.

This case has gone up a couple of times.

State and Individual Parties File for En Banc Review in Brackeen v. Bernhard [ICWA]

ilpc

Individual Petition for EnBanc Review

State Petition for EnBanc Review

The Court has asked the federal and tribal parties for response briefs, which are due October 23rd.

Improper Removal Case out of Washington Court of Appeals [ICWA]

Kate Fort

Today I received a call that went something approximately like this:

Caller: “So with [25 U.S.C.] 1920 …”

Me: “Right, 1922, go on.”

Caller: “Um, ok, so with 1920 . . .”

Me: “I think you mean 1922?”

Caller: “I think I mean 1920?”

Reader, she absolutely meant 25 U.S.C. 1920, and also had the patience to hang in there with me and tell me about the following case:

Here is an opinion from the Washington Court of Appeals decided in January and published in April that I completely missed and is also the only and first case I’ve encountered in five years of reading (nearly) every ICWA case where the court used 25 U.S.C. 1920:

¶30 Both ICWA and WICWA have provisions for the appropriate remedy when an Indian child is improperly removed by the State from his or her home or the State improperly maintains custody. Under ICWA,

[w]here any petitioner in an Indian child custody proceeding before a State court has improperly removed the child from custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over such petition and shall forthwith return the child to his parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to his parent or custodian would subject the child to a substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.

25 U.S.C. § 1920. Similarly, under WICWA,
[i]f a petitioner in a child custody proceeding under this chapter has improperly removed the child from the custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over the petition and shall immediately return the child to the child’s parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to the parent or Indian custodian would subject the child to substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.

RCW 13.38.160.

¶31 Here, the Department has improperly maintained A.L.C’s placement in out-of-home care because the Department has failed to provide active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The appropriate remedy is the remedy prescribed by statute. Thus, we remand to the juvenile court to either immediately return A.L.C. or make the statutorily required finding that returning A.L.C. will subject her to substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.

Emphasis added.

Bill C-92, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

Kate Fort

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-92 (42-1) – Royal Assent – An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families – Parliament of Canada

Somehow the final passage (“royal assent”) of this bill in Canada slipped our attention back in June. Initially, we saw it referred to as a “Canadian ICWA”, but it seems fair to say that it doesn’t quite achieve that level of protection for Native children and families. If nothing else, it illustrates just how differently the Canadian government engages with the tribal nations within its borders compared to the U.S.. We want to add a large caveat, which is that none of us are experts on Canadian law or child welfare.

However, those that are put together a really helpful publication which is available here, and is well worth your read (it made us think about if ICWA would get passing grades):

does-bill-c-92-make-the-grade_-full-report

From the Jurisdiction section of the report:

Why We Give the Bill a ‘D’ on this:

IN A HISTORIC FIRST FOR CANADA, the Bill purports to recognize Indigenous peoples’ inherent jurisdiction. For example, section 8(a) of the Bill affirms “the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services”. This positively worded language is also noted in the Bill’s introduction and summary. Similarly, section 18(1) states that the “inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, including legislative authority in relation to those services and authority to administer and enforce laws made under that legislative authority.” Section 18(2) affirms that this right includes the right to “provide for dispute resolution mechanisms.”

As there are no section 35 cases that recognize an inherent right of self-government for Indigenous Peoples or that have recognized an Aboriginal or Treaty right over child and family services law-making, this is a significant step forward.

This is not, however, a recognition of jurisdiction that removes all federal or provincial oversight, power or intervention. By recognizing jurisdiction over child and family services as a section 35 right, the federal government immediately re-asserts its power to unilaterally infringe or limit that right, a power upheld by court cases such as Sparrow. The legislation sets legal limits in terms of Indigenous laws being subject to Charter and Canadian Human Rights Act and the BIOC. It also sets practical limits in terms of the virtual necessity of negotiating coordination agreements with the federal and provincial governments, and in the glaring absence of any provisions for funding. At best, this could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of concurrent (or shared) jurisdiction, a matter on which Bill C-92 should be more clear.

***

Further, section 23 states Indigenous laws only authoritative if they can be applied in a way that “is not contrary to the best interests of the child.” As previously stated, Indigenous laws have upheld the best interests of Indigenous children for thousands of years. The concern about this limit is how the BIOC doctrine has been interpreted and applied by courts, non-Indigenous governments and decisions makers to apprehend Indigenous children and separate them from their families, communities and territories for the past 50 plus years.

Reason to Know Decision from Washington Court of Appeals [ICWA]

Kate Fort

Here.

ICWA and WICWA require a court conducting a 72-hour shelter care hearing to inquire whether the child is or may be an Indian child. A court substantially complies with that requirement if prior to the hearing the Department has begun a good faith investigation into the child’s Indian status, the parties elicit the relevant evidence during the hearing, and the court considers that evidence before ruling on shelter care.

Ok, sounds good.

The reason-to-know standard turns on evidence that the child is a tribal member, or the child is eligible for tribal membership and a biological parent is a tribal member. If there is a reason to know a child is or may be an Indian child, then ICWA and WICWA require the court to treat the child as an Indian child pending a conclusive membership determination by a tribe. A parent’s mere assertion of Indian heritage absent other evidence is not enough to establish a reason to know a child is or may be an Indian child. Because the Department’s good faith investigation before the shelter care hearing did not reveal evidence that a parent or a child was a tribal member, the court did not err in concluding that there was no reason to know the children were Indian children based on the evidence available at the time of the shelter care hearing, Of course, the Department has an obligation to continue its investigation before proceeding to a dependency or termination hearing.

Oohkay. Then what did the investigation reveal?

The investigation revealed that the mother was eligible in the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida, where her mother is enrolled, the Klawock Cooperative Association, and that father was potentially eligible at Umatilla.  This was not just the parent’s assertion (which frankly, given the specificity, should be enough*)–this included the testimony of the social worker who called Central Council. It turns out what this Court means by reason to know is actual evidence of membership:

Because the Department’s good faith investigation before the shelter care hearing did not reveal evidence that a parent or a child was a tribal member,

The children were removed on June 27. The first hearing (shelter care) took place on July 2-3. At that point, the state social worker had called Central Council and knew grandma was enrolled, but not mom. She then testified that “to her knowledge”, dad was not enrolled, but there is nothing in the opinion on how she would know that. The social worker then testifies it was possible the children were eligible for enrollment.  But then, the court’s shelter care order states there is “not a reason to know” the children are Indian children. When Central Council intervenes in the case on July 30, the Court then decided there was reason to know (well, yes, because then we all know).

Everyone knows (ahem) that three-five days is not enough time for a full notice as required by the law (by mail, return receipt requested). Those of us who do this work ALSO know it may take a tribe longer than that to determine membership. The purpose of the Regs (to treat potential/reason to know Indian children as Indian children until determined otherwise) was to ensure those children were treated as Indian children until membership is all sorted out. The Washington Court of Appeals manages to do the opposite–equating “reason to know” with just plain old “know”. Why does this all matter? The legal standard applied at the shelter care hearing:

Specifically, the information before the court at the shelter care hearing as a
result of the Department’s good faith investigation did not establish a reason to know Z.G. and M.G. were Indian children. Because there was no reason to know,
the normal serious threat of substantial harm standard applied at the shelter care hearing.

Unless a Tribe responds the parent is absolutely a member at that first phone call from the state (not even legally required notice), or the parent happens to have legal evidence of membership on him or her, Washington will claim there is no reason to know, and apply a lower burden of proof than the emergency standard required by ICWA under 1922.

*I decided not to rant about why the parent’s testimony isn’t enough/why parents in court aren’t listened to, but imagine I did.

Qualified Expert Witness Case out of Utah Court of Appeals [ICWA]

Kate Fort

Here.

In this case, the GAL petitioned to remove the child from the mother’s care. This GAL has considerable issues with the application of ICWA:

The GAL argued that since ICWA does not explicitly
define what qualifies a witness as an expert, the juvenile
court had “discretion to determine whether a witness has
adequate qualifications to provide the proffered testimony.” Although the three therapists were not qualified to testify regarding tribal cultural standards, the GAL asserted that the court was not bound by the BIA regulations and urged the court to qualify the therapists as expert witnesses anyway . . .

The Court of Appeals instead agreed with mother and Tribe, stating:

Therefore, because the BIA is a federal administrative agency and ICWA is a federal statute, we must employ the principles articulated in Chevron to determine whether the BIA’s 2016 regulation defining “qualified expert witness” is entitled to deference.

***
Determining that a “qualified expert witness” “should be qualified to testify as to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian child’s Tribe” is consistent with Congressional intent and is reasonable.

Unfortunately, the appellate court ultimately held that:

Although the juvenile court correctly applied Chevron
deference to the BIA’s interpretation of ICWA, it did not
correctly apply the regulation, because it rejected the GAL’s experts solely on the ground that they were not qualified to testify regarding the Tribe’s cultural standards without considering whether those standards had any actual bearing on the proposed grounds for removal. Further, the juvenile court erred in determining that Mother could claim therapist–patient privilege with respect to testimony from her therapist and the family therapist. We therefore reverse the juvenile court’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.