Here.
In this case, the Kalamazoo court did not make an inquiry on the record.
Respondent accurately notes that the circuit court failed to make the required inquiry on the record. However, respondent suffered no prejudice as a result. There is no record evidence to support that the child had any Native American heritage.
Here.
In one line, this case summarizes why the Department’s failure to do notice properly harms kids and families:
[Infant]’s adjudication hearing was initially set for October 2013 but was continued approximately five months (due to the Department’s failure to properly serve notice under the ICWA) during which time the infant remained out of mother’s care.
And, for the record, in this case, “mother and maternal relatives had tribal enrollment numbers, and mother claimed father had Cherokee heritage. None of the ICWA notices sent reflected all of this information.”
Today we did a (long) lunch session on ICWA and MIFPA for state court personnel in Macomb County. Thanks to the Macomb criminal and juvenile law committees for inviting us.
Kate Fort, Michelene Eberhard (chair of the criminal law committee), and Maribeth Preston from SCAO.
Here.
Respondent-father appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) (other conditions exist that cause thechild to come within the court’s jurisdiction), (3)(g) (failure to provideproper care or custody), and (3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part but remand this matter to the trial court to consider whether to conduct a Ginther hearing or to resolve the issues set forth herein by making a determination as to whether trial counsel was ineffective such that there exists a reasonableprobability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different.
The numbers are mind boggling, to say the least. Here.
Over 5,000 Aboriginal children are in care of the province of Alberta. They represent nearly 70 per cent of kids.
The number grows to 5,600 Aboriginal children in Saskatchewan or 83 per cent of all kids in care.
But it’s Manitoba that has the highest numbers.
More than 10,000 Aboriginal children, 87 per cent, are under the care of the province.
Here.
Nov 19, 2014 at 2:30 P.M. (EST): Oversight Hearing on “Protecting our Children’s Mental Health: Preventing and Addressing Childhood Trauma in Indian Country.”
Date: 11/19/2014 02:30 PM
Location: 628 Senate Dirksen Bldg
Type: Oversight Hearing
THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. LISTENBEE JR.
–
DR. YVETTE ROUBIDEAUX
Acting Director-Indian Health Service
MS. KANA ENOMOTO
Principal Deputy Administrator-Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
MR. RICK VAN DEN POL
Director and Principal Investigator-Institute of Educational Research and Service, The University of Montana National Native Children’s Trauma Center
MS. VERNÉ BOERNER
President/CEO-Alaska Native Health Board
Job Title:Senior Advisor, GS-0301-14
Department:Department Of Health And Human Services
Agency:Administration for Children and Families
Job Announcement Number:HHS-ACF-DE-15-1245975
DUTIES:
Back to top
· Lead policy advice and policy direction to, and on behalf of, the Associate Commissioner in relation to tribal child welfare.
· Provide the highest level of strategic policy advice to the Associate Commissioner on tribal child welfare.
· Work with Deputy Associate Commissioner, Directors, Regional Program Mangers and across the Children’s Bureau to co-ordinate the implementation of the Associate Commissioner’s tribal child welfare priorities tribal child welfare legislation and programming.
· Develop and maintain effective partnerships with a wide range of specialist stakeholders from the philanthropy, public and private sectors to ensure a fully inclusive approach to the development and implementation of the Associate Commissioner’s tribal child welfare strategies and policies.
· Provide advice, guidance and assistance to ensure the development and implementation of policies, procedures, and systems needed to plan, develop, monitor and support work with tribes.
· Review a variety of policy, programs and administrative actions, reports, and projects such as new and revised regulations, funding recommendation, program guidelines etc.
· Develop methodology for and conduct special studies, independent analyses and sensitive assignments on matters related to tribal care welfare programs.
· Recommend program improvement initiatives and regulatory and legislative strategies to improve program efficiency and effectiveness.
In some areas of Alaska many elders and even middle-aged community members grew up with Yup’ik as their first language. The resulting language gap for these individuals has created problems when they are involved in court hearings. To combat these problems, the Alaska Institute for Justice is heading up an effort to train Yup’ik interpreters specifically to work in courts, medical facilities, and other institutions. The experts involved with this training are working to create a Yup’ik legal glossary with an emphasis on words that describe problems such as: sexual assault, child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and parental neglect and abuse.
“Our goal is to make sure that all Alaskans have access to the services that they need regardless of their ability to speak English,” said Robin Bronen, executive director of the justice institute.
Full article available here.
With Jack Trope and Justice Kevin Briscoe.
Here.
A footnote in the case,
The record does not clarify whether G.S. ever had custody of M.S. The record is silent regarding G.S.’s relationship with M.S. prior to his incarceration. We recognize that 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) does not apply where the “breakup of the Indian family” has long since occurred. In re J.S., 2014 MT 79, P29, 374 Mont. 329, 321 P.3d 103 (citing Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 2552, 2559 (2013)). Although the District Court asked during the April 22, 2013 hearing, before Baby Girl was decided, how the ICWA standard for termination applies in a situation where the child was never in the parent’s custody, the parties did not dispute that ICWA’s active efforts were required. Because this potential issue was not raised, we will not address it in this appeal.
got me looking for other cases that have cited Adoptive Couple. According to Westlaw, that would be 19 cases, including this one. Striking four of them as not child welfare cases, all 15 remaining were involuntary proceedings. Five from California, two from Montana, and one in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. Three cases “distinguished” Adoptive Couple, though that included the Alexandria P. case, so distinguishing Adoptive Couple doesn’t necessarily mean the court followed ICWA. Seven of the cases only cited the case (including this one).
Those that used the Adoptive Couple reasoning (instead of citing the case for fairly standard ICWA language) include:
Native Villiage of Tununak v. State (holding that the adoption preferences of ICWA didn’t apply if the preferred placement didn’t “formally” move to adopt the child);
In re J.S. (applying the “continued custody” reasoning to a guardianship); and
In re Elise W. (discussing whether the case would change notice requirements when a parent never had custody)(unpublished case out of California’s First District).
In re T.S. (discussing when active efforts must start, in light of 1922 and 1912(d))
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.