Child Welfare
NCAI and NARF Information on Tribal Amicus Brief for Texas v. Zinke
Here:
Information on the case here.
| Important Indian Child Welfare Act Case, Brackeen v. Zinke, likely to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. NCAI and its partners urge tribal nations to join tribal amicus brief.
We need your help. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA), the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) need your help in securing tribal nations as signatories to an amicus brief to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The four intervening tribal nations in this case – the Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation, and Quinault Indian Nation – appreciate the work of NCAI, AAIA, NICWA, and NARF in asking that all 573 federally recognized tribal nations stand together on one brief. The ongoing amicus strategy emphasizes the importance of Indian Country speaking with one voice in our support of ICWA before the Court. One focused tribal brief also makes it more likely to be seriously considered by the Court than an approach where multiple briefs are submitted by tribal nations. Any federally recognized tribal nation, inter-tribal organization, or ICWA organization may join this brief free of charge. Details: · There is no cost to join the amicus brief. The ICWA attorneys at NARF and the law firm Dentons have volunteered to draft this tribal brief pro bono, as with the tribal amicus briefs before the district court and previous federal litigation. · NARF is coordinating tribal signatories. Any tribal nation, inter-tribal organization, or ICWA organization interested in signing on to the amicus brief can contact Dan Lewerenz at lewerenz@narf.org and/or Erin Dougherty Lynch at dougherty@narf.org. · The notice of appeal was just filed yesterday, and the briefing schedule has not yet been set. Tribes and organizations that express their interest will be notified of upcoming deadlines, and if requested will receive a draft of the brief for review in advance of filing. Instructions on how to obtain the review draft, and how to formally join the brief as a signatory tribe or organization, will follow at a later date. Background: In Brackeen v. Zinke, No. 4:17-cv-00868 (N.D. Texas), several individual plaintiffs and the States of Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana have sued the United States Departments of the Interior and of Health and Human Services, arguing that ICWA is unconstitutional and that the Department of the Interior’s 2016 regulations (Final Rule) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The United States has defended ICWA and the Final Rule, and four tribal nations – Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation, and Quinault Indian Nation – have intervened as tribal defendants. (Navajo Nation also recently moved to intervene as a defendant on appeal; that motion is still pending.) On October 4, 2018, the District Court granted a decision in favor of the plaintiffs and the States, holding (1) that ICWA operates as a racial statute and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, (2) that ICWA violates the Tenth Amendment by forcing States to carry out federal policy, (3) that ICWA includes an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority to tribal nations, and (4) that the Final Rule violates the APA. This tribal brief is part of a coordinated amicus strategy among ICWA supporters that aims to present the court will all of the information it needs to reverse the district court’s erroneous decision, while hopefully avoiding unnecessary duplication with other briefs. As part of that strategy, the tribal brief will focus on three arguments: (1) It will explain the historical conditions that made ICWA necessary, and demonstrate ICWA’s continuing relevance today; (2) it will push back against the District Court’s assertion that the political relationship between the federal government and tribal nations is limited to on- and near-reservation Native people; and (3) it will explain why ICWA does not “delegate” authority to tribal nations, but rather lawfully affirms tribal nations’ authority to legislate concerning child welfare and other domestic relations. Again, there is no cost to join this amicus brief. Any tribal nation or organization interested in joining this brief, please contact Dan Lewerenz at lewerenz@narf.org and/or Erin Dougherty Lynch at dougherty@narf.org. NARF will share with interested tribal nations and organizations a draft brief when it is ready for circulation, and will keep them informed of all upcoming deadlines. Thank you for your support and do not hesitate to contact Dan Lewerenz atlewerenz@narf.org and/or Erin Dougherty Lynch at dougherty@narf.org if you have any questions about the brief itself or amicus brief strategy. NCAI Contact Info: Derrick Beetso, General Counsel, dbeetso@ncai.org |
Placement Preferences/Active Efforts (ICWA) Case from South Dakota Supreme Court
Footnote 4:
4. We are aware of the recent decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas holding parts of ICWA, including its placement preferences, unconstitutional. Brackeen v. Zinke, No. 4:17-cvoo868-0, 2018 WL 4927908 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2018). However, the decision may be appealed and ICWA has previously been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 104 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1989). Moreover, we are not bound by the decision of the District Court in Texas and must presume that ICWA is constitutional. U.S. v. v. Nat’l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S. Ct. 594, 597, 9 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1963) (noting that Acts of Congress have “strong presumptive validity’); State v. Rolfe, 2013 S.D. 2, ¶ 13, 825 N.W.2d 901, 905 (“Statutes are presumed to be constitutional[.]”).
The Father argued the state failed to provide active efforts when the children were not placed within the placement preferences. The Court did not agree with his argument.
Four Intervening Tribes in Texas v. Zinke ICWA Case File Notice to Appeal and Motion to Stay in Fifth Circuit
New Fifth Circuit page here.
Tribal Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
Finally, the district court’s ruling will cause significant inconsistency throughout the country. As this Court noted in Bryant, when issuing a stay, “[t]he inevitable disruption that would arise from a lack of continuity and stability in this important area of the law” will harm the parties and “the public interest at large.” Id.
Texas Instructs State Attorneys to Stop Following ICWA
Colorado Court of Appeals ICWA Case on Burden of Proof and Application
Opinion here.
ICWA requires two things to apply–an “Indian child” and a “child custody proceeding”. Once both of those things are met, then the court has to apply the heightened standards required by the law. This decision out of Colorado wrestles with when to apply the heightened burdens. There are four “child custody proceedings” under ICWA: a foster care proceeding, a termination of parental rights proceeding, a pre-adoptive placement, and an adoptive placement. In a standard state child custody case, there is an emergency/shelter care/preliminary/24-72 hour hearing, then an adjudicatory/jurisdictional hearing, followed by dispositional/review hearings, and finally permanency hearings. They don’t neatly map on to the ICWA defined proceedings, so the question of when to apply the heightened burden of proof can be up for debate. Because the adjudicatory hearing is the time when the court decides whether the state has met its burden to intrude on the family’s life and whether the court therefore has jurisdiction to do so, ICWA advocates often argue that the court should apply heightened standards at that very important hearing. However, it’s also often true that state has already removed a child, so it is technically not a “foster care proceeding” because the child is already in foster care. The Colorado Court of Appeals here decided the heightened burden has to apply to the dispositional hearing, where the Court determines the placement of a child (any proceeding that may result in a foster care placement, even if the child is placed back with a parent is subject to ICWA standards).
The Court also holds that a lack of notice does not deprive the state court of subject matter jurisdiction, and that ICWA applies until it is determined the child is not an Indian child.
The Indian Child Welfare Act at 40
On this date in 1978, President Carter signed the Indian Child Welfare Act into law.
Senator Abourezk introduced the bill to the Senate on April 1, 1977, and the Senate voted on it on November 4, 1977. Interestingly, while Sen. Goldwater supported the purpose of the bill, he did not vote on the Senate’s version of ICWA. He was traveling back to Arizona the night of the vote.
The House Resolution (H.Res. 1374) to consider the bill was introduced by Rep. Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress, on September 22, 1978. The House voted on the bill on October 14, 1978.
The Act was obviously the work of more people than can be named in a post, but here are the names of just some of the Native women activists identified in the book A Generation Removed: Mrs. Fournier and the mothers’ delegation of Fort Totten, Margaret Townsend (Fallon, Nevada) Evelyn Blanchard (Laguna and Yaqui), Eloise Doan (Blackfeet), Goldie Denny (Quinault), the women of the Wisconsin American Indian Child Placement and Development Program, the North American Indian Women’s Association, Janet McCloud (Tulalip and Nisqually), Maxine Robbins (Yakama), Betty Jack (Ojibwe), and Ramona Bennett, Chairwoman of the Puyallup Tribe who was denied a seat at the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association because she was a woman, and when finally allowed in, told the chairmen that while they were talking about fishing and housing and natural resources, they needed to do something about the children who were being taken away too.
As always, NARF has all of the legislative history online and searchable, which is full of important work like the letter from Eric Eberhard on behalf of the Navajo Nation, or the original statistical report from AAIA or the letter from Don Milligan at the “Indian Desk” State of Washington Department of Social and Health services detailing in 14 pages the way PL-280 was destroying tribal families.
Spending time in the legislative history of ICWA is both humbling and inspiring and a good way to spend some time on this fortieth anniversary.
Texas v. Zinke Update: Stay Denied; Navajo Nation Files Motion to Intervene
In Texas v. Zinke, the ICWA case in the northern district of Texas, the district court judge denied the four intervening defendant tribes’ motion to stay the decision. There has been no stay request filed in the Fifth Circuit nor a notice of appeal.
Navajo Nation filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of appeal.
Statement from Partnership for Native Children explaining the stay is here.
Comments Needed for Pro Hac Vice Rule Change in Wisconsin (ICWA)
Rule here.
Letter regarding the rule: 18-04-Ltr to Interested Persons.
Comments due by November 29.
Any comment to the rule petition should be filed by November 29, 2018, with the Clerk of Supreme Court, Attention: Deputy Clerk-Rules, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688. If possible, email a Microsoft Word version of your response to clerk@wicourts.gov. See comment guidelines at the court’s website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/petitioncomment.htm.
Nebraska Supreme Court ICWA Decision: Active Efforts
This case discusses how private parties (grandparents) can provide active efforts in a guardianship situation. This further develops this state case law in this area, most recently addressed in In re Micah H. (Neb. 2016), In re T.A.W. (Wash. 2016) and In re S.S. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017):
In this case, Tyler was counseled by Linda concerning his drug and alcohol problems. The record shows that Linda suggested
multiple treatment programs in which Tyler could seek rehabilitation for his addiction. However, Linda and Daniel had no control with regard to forcing Tyler to seek treatment.The record demonstrates that Linda and Daniel discussed proper parenting techniques and interactions with small children. Further, Linda and Daniel assisted with scheduling visitation
and the implementation of a parenting plan. Tyler demonstrated no need for housing, financial support, or transportation
to unite with Micah. Despite Tyler’s numerous criminal convictions involving drugs and alcohol, Tyler maintained that he
does not suffer from drug or alcohol addiction.With the exception of completing parenting classes while in prison, Tyler has not sought to actively participate in drug and alcohol treatment or support programs. In fact, Tyler has attended only one Alcoholics Anonymous meeting while in prison, at the invitation of another, and suggested to the court
below that his presence at the meeting was for the purpose of supporting others in the program.Based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we find that Linda and Daniel undertook active efforts to provide
remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to unite Tyler and Micah.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.