Here.
Bolick currently represents some non-Indian parents who are suing to overturn the federal Indian Child Welfare Act which requires require state courts when placing Indian children for adoption to give preference to a member of the child’s extended family. That is followed by priority by other members of the child’s tribe and, ultimately, other Indian families. Bolick also named DCS as a defendant because it follows that policy.
Lawsuit documents here, as always.
While a few cases might yet come in, we have our final list of 2015 appealed ICWA cases sorted. A note on the data–these are cases that are on Westlaw, and mentioned ICWA. If you know we are missing a case based on the numbers, *please* let me know so we can add it. We collect the case name, the date, the court, the state, whether the case is reported or not, the top two issues, up to three named tribes, the outcome of the case, and who appealed the case. These are standard state court ICWA cases, and do not include any of the ongoing federal litigation.
There were 201 ICWA cases in 2015. 35 of them were reported. As usual, California has the most number of cases, with 156 (146 unreported).The next highest state was Michigan, with 7 cases (3 unreported), Alaska with 6 (3 unreported), Arizona with 5 (4 unreported). The rest, with 2 reported are Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Washington.
With 1 reported are Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming.
California further breaks down with the highest number of cases (57) in the 2nd Appellate District (which includes L.A. County), followed by 33 in the 4th, 29 in the 1st, 16 in the 3rd, 15 in the 5th, and 6 in the 6th. Only the 2nd and 4th reported out any cases.
Supreme Courts in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming all heard ICWA cases. 98 of the 201 total cases were affirmed, 82 remanded (nearly all California notice cases), 5 dismissed, and 16 reversed.
The top issues in reported cases break down as follows: Notice (13), Determination of Indian Child (5), Active Efforts (4), Qualified Expert Witness (4), and Placement Preferences (3), Inquiry (1), Transfer to Tribal Court (1).
70 different tribes were represented in the cases, which include any time a parent claims tribal affiliation of any sort (so Cherokee has 58 of the 203 total cases as first tribe claimed, 21 as second tribe claimed and 5 as third, for a total of 84). In 31 cases, the tribe was unknown, in 4 the tribe was unnamed by the court. For those 31, 25 of the cases dealt with a lack of inquiry and/or notice.
Finally, of the 35 reported cases, mother appealed 15, father 10, both parents 4, tribe 4, and GAL 1.
Here.
The court held that the burden for active efforts is clear and convincing evidence. In addition, that active efforts consists of more than reasonable efforts, citing to the 2015 Guidelines and other state court decisions. In this case, the court held there was not clear and convincing evidence that the state provided active efforts:
The testimony at the TPR demonstrates that the Department took the affirmative steps of meeting with Father to create a treatment plan, and referring Father to a parenting class. It appears the Department pointed Father in the direction of service providers, but did little else to assist Father in implementing the treatment plan. Father was not offered services aside from the one parenting class. The Department took a passive role by shouldering Father with the burden of not only independently locating and obtaining services, but also ensuring the service providers were communicating with the Department about his progress.
Recently the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Children’s Justice, established an ICWA compliance task force with a goal of examining ICWA non-compliance in California. In support of this effort tribal leaders have come together to provide information to assist the California DOJ in looking at ICWA compliance issues, including cases involving non-California tribes. This project is an opportunity for all tribes to provide feedback on these important issues.
Letter to tribal leaders from task force co-chairs.
Letter to tribal leaders from California AG.
There is both a call (details in first letter) and a survey is for any tribe with children in the California system, not just California tribes. Survey is here and is due by January 15.
Questions can be directed to Delia Parr at CILS, CALINDIAN@calindian.org
Table of Contents here.
This issue includes Finding their way home: The reunification of First Nations adoptees by Ashley L. Landers, Sharon M. Danes, and Sandy White Hawk.
Children’s Bureau (part of the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families) Report analyzing the Child and Family Service Plans (CFSP) for tribal-state consultation and collaboration on ICWA compliance.
Link.
PDF(nearly 300 pages).
(I’m going to note that while the CFSPs are required by the Feds for funding, the states self-report the information in the CFSPs. Whether tribes would agree with what the states reported, or whether what they reported would be considered “consultation,” is not addressed in this report.
It might be worth it for tribes to review this report or their state’s individual CFSP [which are usually available online] to see what they say, and perhaps let the Children’s Bureau know if the tribe disagrees. This is one of the few areas where federal funding is remotely tied to ICWA compliance. In case you’re wondering, here is what the federal Administration for Children and Families considers consultation. ACF Consultation Policy )
Casey Family Programs Oklahoma Case File Review report.
Here.
Though unpublished, this case addresses many of the issues surrounding active efforts, standards of evidence, 2015 Guidelines, and much of the frustration in child welfare.
For example, this is not active efforts:
Before the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Agency’s social worker, Sara Whitney, met with Amber while in custody at Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility. The social worker discussed services available to Amber as a member of a Native American tribe and provided contact information for specific service providers.
Nor is this:
Shortly thereafter, Whitney spoke with the parenting coordinator at one of Southern Indian Health’s partners, who indicated she would follow up with Amber to help her obtain counseling. Whitney then followed up with Amber and provided her with contact information for the parenting coordinator, as well as additional referrals for residential drug treatment services.
This case also highlights the way each state manages to remove children using just different enough procedures:
This case highlights a gap between federal law and the manner in which California’s dependency proceedings are conducted. “[B]ecause the ‘ “critical decision[s] regarding parental rights … [and] that the minor cannot be returned home” ‘ [are] made at the earlier review hearing, the issues at the section 366.26 hearing are generally limited to the questions whether the child is adoptable and whether there is a statutory exception to adoption.” (In re Matthew Z. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 545, 552–553.) “[U]nlike the termination hearings in most states, the purpose of the final termination hearing in California ‘is not to accumulate further evidence of parental unfitness and danger to the child, but to begin the task of finding the child a permanent alternative family placement.’ “ (Ibid.)
to make implementing federal standards incredibly difficult, because of the state-by-state, and case-by-case, determinations in our dependency courts:
Amber concedes, however, that the new BIA Guidelines are “consistent with statutes and Rules of Court from this State” and also recognizes that the Guidelines are not binding authority. As we recently held “[e]ven in light of the new guidelines information, the general principle still applies[ ] that ‘[t]he adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonable of [the Agency’s] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.’ “ (A.C., 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.)
News coverage that confirms all accounts we received that this was a very difficult and discouraging hearing.
This hearing was on DOJ’s motion to dismiss the Goldwater ICWA litigation, which is contesting the constitutionality of ICWA. Relevant documents are here.
In response to questions we’ve been getting–this hearing was only on the government’s motion to dismiss. By the looks of it, the judge is not likely to dismiss the case at this point. Next up in the litigation is a fight over class certification, which the judge was delaying full briefing on until after the decision on the motion to dismiss. There will also be rulings on Navajo Nation and Gila River’s motions to intervene. Short answer to what the hearing likely means–this is looking like a long slog. We would really love to be wrong.
CBC story here.
Recommendations/Calls to Action here.
Child welfare
1. We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care by:i. Monitoring and assessing neglect investigations.
ii. Providing adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities and child-welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments, regardless of where they reside.
iii. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and impacts of residential schools.
iv. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing.
v. Requiring that all child-welfare decision makers consider the impact of the residential school experience on children and their caregivers.
2. We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to prepare and publish annual reports on the number of Aboriginal children (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) who are in care, compared with non-Aboriginal children, as well as the reasons for apprehension, the total spending on preventive and care services by child-welfare agencies, and the effectiveness of various interventions.
3. We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan’s Principle.
4. We call upon the federal government to enact Aboriginal child-welfare legislation that establishes national standards for Aboriginal child apprehension and custody cases and includes principles that:
i. Affirm the right of Aboriginal governments to establish and maintain their own child-welfare agencies.
ii. Require all child-welfare agencies and courts to take the residential school legacy into account in their decision making.
iii. Establish, as an important priority, a requirement that placements of Aboriginal children into temporary and permanent care be culturally appropriate.
5. We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate parenting programs for Aboriginal families.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.