Article here.
Report here
Child Welfare
NICWA Annual Conference Call for Presentations
Report on Spending on Child Welfare
PDF here.
The survey of 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico found that child welfare agency expenditures from federal, state, and local sources decreased by eight percent between state fiscal years 2010 and 2012—representing the first decrease in spending that has been found since the survey began in 1996. In addition, federal spending on child welfare declined, and was found to be at its lowest level since the state fiscal year 1998 survey.
Information on Title IV-E spending and tribes on pages 31-32.
via NICWA.
Afternoon Nuts and Bolts Panel at MIFPA Training
Annette Nickel, Judge Butts, Maribeth Preston, Judge Maldonado
Judge Thorne Presenting At the Grand Rapids MIFPA Training
Spoiler alert–the answer is “gold standard.”
Susan Harness Kicks Off Overflow MIFPA Training in Grand Rapids
Amazing turn out.
Unpublished ICWA Burden of Proof Case out of Michigan
Here.
The record demonstrates that although the trial court found that DP and AP were Indian children under the ICWA, the trial court did not apply the heightened “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard of proof at the termination hearing as required under ICWA. Id.; 25 USC 1912(f). The record further demonstrates that although a representative of DP and AP’s Indian tribe testified at the termination hearing, the witness was never qualified as an expert and, importantly, the witness did not testify that respondents’ “continued custody of” DP and AP was “likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the” Indian children. 25 USC 1912(f); In re Morris, 491 Mich at 100 n 9. In both Docket No. 318105 and 318163, petitioner concedes that the trial court “committed reversible error” by applying the incorrect evidentiary standard of proof, and petitioner requests that we reverse the trial court’s termination of respondents’ respective parental rights to the Indian children and remand for further proceedings consistent with applicable ICWA provision. On the record before us, we agree that the trial court committed plain error affecting respondents’ substantial rights. In re Utrera, 281 Mich App at 8- 9; see In re Morris, 491 Mich at 100 n 9. In both Docket No. 318105 and 318163, we reverse the termination of respondents’ respective parental rights to the two Indian children, DP and AP, and remand for proceedings in compliance with ICWA, 25 USC 1912(f).
Published Definition of Indian Child Case out of California
Here.
Disproportionate Numbers of Native Kids in Care in Canada
Article here.
Notice Violation Case out of Illinois
That’s right–out of Illinois. According to Westlaw (ICWA & “Indian Child Welfare Act”), there are a grand total of 11 ICWA cases from the Illinois appellate courts.
Here is the most recent. The appeals court reversed and remanded due to ICWA notice violations (for one child–the other was not the biological child of the father):
At the dispositional hearing on April 26, 2011, the trial court found Dwight to be unfit and awarded guardianship of N.L. to DCFS. Among the reports submitted for the court’s consideration was a social history report, dated March 23, 2011, indicating that Dwight is a registered member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, White Earth Reservation (the Tribe).
***
The trial court questioned the State about the children’s eligibility for tribal registry and was advised that the State had already received notices that both minors were ineligible for registry with the Tribe. The State was ordered to provide documentation of its compliance with the statute at the status hearing on December 18. No documents addressing the issue of tribal registry for the minors were submitted at that or any subsequent proceeding until the hearing on the State’s motion to supplement the record during the pendency of this appeal.
***
The State’s Tribe letters suggest that the Tribe was provided with the minors’ names and dates of birth and imply that Dwight’s name was provided with reference to N.L. The State’s Tribe letter for N.L is dated September 16, 2011, and that for M.L. is dated February 25, 2013. In its order granting the State’s motion to supplement the record, the court expressed concern with Dwight’s solicitation of new evidence while the case was on appeal. However, many of the documents the State was allowed to include with its supplementation were dated after the termination hearing and after Dwight’s notice of appeal.
Dwight filed a motion with this court to supplement the record with his own Tribe letter– from the same person who had signed the State’s letters– showing that N.L. and M.L. were eligible for tribal membership. He acquired this letter as a result of his solicitation for evidence related to the appeal. This court allowed Dwight to submit his Tribe letter with his case pending our decision of the propriety of its inclusion in the record. Dwight’s Tribe letter states that the minors are eligible for tribal membership and suggests that the Tribe was provided with the dates of birth for both minors, the correct spelling of N.L.’s name, and the names and dates of birth for both Dwight and Emily.
For reference, here’s the list of the Illinois appellate ICWA cases:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.