Here.
All of the cards were stacked against the parents in these proceedings and the parents lost 100 percent of the time.
That’s right, you didn’t misread that. The state won 100 percent of the time, which isn’t surprising given that only the state was allowed to present any evidence and all of that evidence was submitted secretly to the judge. But two South Dakota Indian tribes — the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe — and three Indian parents fought back.
Here. The Department and trial court ignored federal law, state law, the new Guidelines, and the proposed Regulations:
In September 2013, paternal grandmother indicated that the child may have ancestry in the Soboba Indian Tribe. There is no indication of notice to the Soboba Indian Tribe in the record. Regardless, at the detention hearing held September 18, 2013, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.The court terminated father’s parental rights as to L.C. at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.
Fourth District, Riverside County.
Here.
Since the 1970s, 33 states have created Putative Father Registries, designed as a way to link unmarried men to the mother of their child. States expect men to report—voluntarily and honestly—information about all their sexual partners; otherwise, they forfeit their right to be contacted if a partner pursues adoption. The registry is not a petition for custody or a determination of paternity—only a right to notification. Without registry, the wishes of the biological father are irrelevant.
Here is a Casey Family Programs publication, “Measuring Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act”
At present, no federal agency is tasked with ensuring state compliance with the protections mandated by ICWA. Without federal oversight, state legislatures, public child welfare authorities and courts are left to interpret ICWA provisions and definitions of “active efforts.”22, 23 Despite overall decreases in rates of out-of-home placements, Indian children remain disproportionately represented in the foster care system, at more than twice the rate of the general population,24 though this varies among states.25
Related, here is a copy of the law professors comments to the original AFCARS proposed rule on collecting data.
There is no statistical data required on Indian children from State or Tribal child and family care agencies. There is also no data on State compliance with ICWA. Under § 429(c), the ACF already possess and exercises the requisite authority to collect ICWA data. 42 U.S.C. 479(c)(3)(A)-(D).
The AFCARS regulations should follow the same requirements for Title IV-B Agencies in ICWA data reporting, as seen in the PIs released by HHS. [ACYF-CB-PI-14-03 (2014)]. HHS has defined “Title IV-E Agency” “as the State or Tribal agency administering or supervising the administration of the title IV-B and title IV-E plans.” 77 F.R. 896. Under this definition, Title IV-B Agencies may also be Title IV-E Agencies. Due to this, ACF should also include similar ICWA data requirements in AFCARS.In addition, the SSA also requires AFCARS to “provide comprehensive national information” regarding “the extent and nature of assistance provided by Federal, State, and local adoption and foster care programs and the characteristics of the children with respect to whom such assistance is provided.” 42 U.S.C. 479(c)(3)(d). Not only does this encompass Title IV-B Agencies, but also Title IV-E Agencies, which HHS provides direct Title IV-E funding to Tribes and Tribal child and family service programs under the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008. The American Indian / Alaska Native children in these Title IV-B or Title IV-E Agencies are ICWA children, and that data should also be collected in order to “ensure that the [AFCARS] system functions reliably throughout the United States.” 42 U.S.C. 479(c)(4).
Under this legal and policy background, and as recommended by HHS, we recommend ACF add the following data elements and questions to the AFCARS in order to comply with ICWA.
From the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare:
It is apparent that the BIA guidelines on Indian child welfare proceedings overlap with current legislation in Minnesota, showing that efforts by the BIA and other advocates have likely been considered. The modifications to MIFPA and changes to out-of-home placement provisions are sensitive to tribal involvement, and the importance of heritage and culture in the lives of Indian children and families is clearly defined in the proposed purpose of MIFPA and other aspects of the new legislation. The bills fill gaps previously left unclear or undefined.
While the bills show much progress for Indian child welfare in Minnesota, there is one thing to consider. In terms of court placement of an Indian child outside of the placement preferences, both bills allow social services agencies to provide testimony that they have performed diligent efforts to follow the ICWA placement preferences. What is unclear is how the courts plan to measure the level of diligence and whether or not DHS would provide guidance over this.
The 45 page order granting partial summary judgment is HERE, with a judgment order granting injunctive and declaratory relief forthcoming in May.
The court finds that Judge Davis, States Attorney Vargo, Secretary Valenti and Ms. Van Hunnick developed and implemented policies and procedures for the removal of Indian children from their parents’ custody in violation of the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The case directly addressed section 1922 emergency removal standard of evidence and return of the child; and due process claims at those emergency hearings (48-hour hearing) of notice, the right of parents to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, attorney representation, and a decision based on evidence at that hearing.
Among many other things, the judge addresses both the old and new Guidelines (which specifically mentioned this case):
A simple examination of these administrative materials should have convinced the defendants that their policies and procedures were not in conformity with ICWA § 1922, the DOI Guidelines or the Guidelines promulgated by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. Indian children, parents and tribes deserve better.
The order grants summary judgment on the ICWA violations AND the Due Process ones:
Judge Davis and the other defendants failed to protect Indian parents’ fundamental rights to a fair hearing by not allowing them to present evidence to contradict the State’s removal documents. The defendants failed by not allowing the parents to confront and cross-examine DSS witnesses. The defendants failed by using documents as a basis for the court’s decisions which were not provided to the parents and which were not received in evidence at the 48-hour hearings.
This is amazing–congratulations and many thanks to all involved. Especially to the families.
Previous coverage here. Summary judgment briefs and exhibits here.
Via NICWA.
Link here.
Indian tribes developing title IV-E foster care programs faced resource constraints and reported challenges adopting some program requirements. According to GAO’s interviews with tribal and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials, the resource constraints faced by tribes include limited numbers of staff and staff turnover. While the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering Connections Act) allows tribes to administer a title IV-E foster care program, it generally did not modify title IV-E’s requirements for tribes. By contrast, some other programs administered by HHS offer tribes additional flexibilities, provided they are consistent with the objectives of the program. Given tribes’ resource constraints and cultural values, adopting some title IV-E requirements has been difficult. For example, officials from 6 of 11 tribes developing title IV-E programs that GAO interviewed said that the requirement to electronically submit case-level data on all children in foster care was challenging. In addition, 7 of these 11 tribal officials reported that incorporating termination of parental rights—which severs the legal parent-child relationship in certain circumstances—into their tribal codes was challenging because it conflicts with their cultural values. HHS recognizes that termination of parental rights may not be part of an Indian tribe’s traditional beliefs; however according to the agency it lacks the statutory authority to provide a general exemption for tribal children from the requirement.
Report here (pdf, 47 pages)
We’ve written about this in the past. Here is a letter from NICWA explaining more about the regulations, and the reason for written comments (and if you scroll to the bottom, they’ve even provided a sample comments letter):
Dear Advocates for the Indian Child Welfare Act,
The National Indian Child Welfare Association has been diligently working for over 25 years to increase state compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This has included training of state and tribal workers, helping tribes develop inter-governmental agreements with states, participating in state and federal ICWA cases, and advocating for federal monitoring of state ICWA compliance. One of the areas where the greatest need exists is data collection. No federal agency collects comprehensive data on the status of native children and their families who are involved in state child welfare proceedings and subject to ICWA.
NICWA has advocated for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the Department of Health and Human Services to collect ICWA data on individual cases, both because of the relationship they have with states through funding and policy, and because of federal law and policy that directs them to collect some related data. ACF has resisted efforts to collect more comprehensive ICWA data in the past, but draft regulations published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2015 propose collecting new data within the federal government’s largest data system for children who are placed in out of home care by state or county child welfare authorities. This system is the Automated Foster Care and Adoption Reporting System (AFCARS) and these proposed regulations present the best opportunity for tribal nations to finally convince ACF to collect ICWA data.
NICWA is making the case that these proposed regulations should also include ICWA data elements, which are open for public comment until April 10, 2015, but we need your help if we are going to convince ACF to do this. The process for evaluating comments and what changes should be made in AFCARS will look at the number of individual comments ACF receives as well as the content of those comments. In other words, if we are able to provide ACF with substantial numbers of comments that recommend the inclusion of ICWA data elements in AFCARS, we may finally have a federal data system that regularly collects and tracks ICWA data. To make your job of filing comments easier, NICWA has provided a sample comments letter that you can use or modify as you see fit. We are also providing instructions below on how to file your comments electronically.
This is an almost a once in a lifetime opportunity to finally get a more comprehensive collection of ICWA data. The last time AFCARS was open for substantive changes was in the early 1990’s so we probably won’t see another opportunity like this for many, many years. NICWA will be filing comments, but we also need your help too. If you have any questions about AFCARS, the proposed regulations, or how this will help ICWA compliance, please don’t hesitate to contact either myself or Addie Smith addie@nicwa.org. I want to thank you in advance for your help to increase the information and tools we have to increase protections under ICWA for our native children and families.
Best Regards,
David Simmons
Notice of Public Rulemaking on AFCARS
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-09/pdf/2015-02354.pdf
Instructions on how to file comments electronically via www.regulations.gov (see link below for submission)
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=ACF-2015-0001-0001
David Simmons, MSW | Director of Government Affairs and Advocacy
National Indian Child Welfare Association
5100 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97239
Here.
OJJDP is seeking a Tribal Youth Program training and technical assistance provider to provide culturally, trauma-informed, and developmentally appropriate training; support, resources; information; and other related technical assistance to all OJJDP tribal program grantees and federally recognized tribes across the nation. When allocating resources, OJJDP-funded tribal program grantees would receive priority. The successful applicant will develop culturally specific training and technical assistance for tribes seeking to build capacity to develop, expand, improve and/or maintain their juvenile justice systems. Priority areas include juvenile healing-to-wellness courts, tribal youth-specific prevention, intervention, and treatment programming and tribal-state collaborations to meet the needs of American Indian/Alaska Native children exposed to violence. The successful applicant will collaborate closely with OJJDP’s other training and technical assistance efforts andproviders.
On average we receive around a case a day out of California that mentions ICWA, and usually in the notice context. We don’t post all of them, and the vast majority of them are unpublished. But over the last couple of days, we’ve received two that demonstrate the large inconsistencies across the state when it comes to determining if the child is an Indian child, and notice procedures. Neither of these cases are outliers from the hundreds that go up each year, other than the difference in treatment caught our eye. This also demonstrates the difficulty in identifying exactly where additional resources need to be dedicated to ICWA enforcement–it’s not on a fifty state level, it’s on a county-by-county level.
In the first, out of the First Appellate District (Del Norte County) mother says her grandma told her their family may be from the “Comanche Nation.” Notice went out to Comanche, and the Nation said the child was not eligible for enrollment. However, on appeal, the court found
As noted, the only information the Department provided for the maternal grandmother—Nina’s mother—was her name and an incomplete address (“Grant’s Pass,Oregon”). The record contains evidence,however, suggesting that with a minimal amount of inquiry, the Department would have been able to obtain additional information regarding the grandmother. First, the family was involved in a dependency proceeding when Nina was a minor. By its own admission, the Department reviewed that file as part of the instant proceeding and, at a very minimum, would have been able to glean the grandmother’s date of birth, which was unquestionably in the file. This directly refutes the Department’s claim that “there is no indication that the social worker left out any available information.”
***
It was incumbent upon the Department to interview her extended family members to obtain whatever further details it could about the family’s Native American heritage.
In the second case, out of the Fourth Appellate District (San Diego County), mother said her family was affiliated with the “Winnebago Sioux tribe in Decorah, Iowa.” The social worker talked to mother and grandmother about it, and found “no one in the family ever lived on a reservation, attended an Indian school, participated in Indian ceremonies or received services from an Indian health clinic.” The court found
We conclude that proper inquiry was conducted to determine whether K.P. was a Native American child within the meaning for ICWA. The court questioned mother and her mother concerning the family’s Native American heritage. According to these relatives, no family members had ever been registered or eligible for enrollment with a tribe and the court was not required to give notice.
In both cases, the claims were attenuated. But regardless, the claims received very different treatment between the two trial courts–in the first, where the Department did not do enough inquiry, notice at least went out to the Comanche Nation. In the second, no one notified Winnebago (nor Ho-Chunk, for that matter), nor allowed either Nation to determine whether this family might be related. And then on appeal, both received very different treatment from the appellate courts. In the first, the court had to do better notice. In the second, the court didn’t have to do any notice.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.