Spoiler alert–the answer is “gold standard.”
Judge Thorne Presenting At the Grand Rapids MIFPA Training
Spoiler alert–the answer is “gold standard.”
Child Welfare
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Unpublished ICWA Burden of Proof Case out of Michigan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:
ICWA Termination/Placement Case out of California
Here. Straightforward case, but an example of a clan mother from a tribe (Tuscarora) in New York working with California social services to find multiple placements for the baby.
NPR Story on Indian Child Welfare Human Rights Crisis in South Dakota
Navajo Boy Sent Home for Having Long Hair on First Day of School
Here is one of many articles.
And here is what the Fifth Circuit has already said about such nonsense regarding the treatment of another 5-year-old in Texas:
A Native American boy and his parents challenge a school district’s requirement that he wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. We agree with the district court that the requirement offends a sincere religious belief and hold it invalid under Texas law.
And as @NativeApprops pointed out, one might also check out the name of the district and the mascot where this happened.
Active Efforts Case Out of Washington Court of Appeals
Here.
Despite Louch’s argument that visitation is a remedial service under ICWA, that term is not defined in the federal or state version of ICWA. Louch cites no state or federal case holding that visitation itself is a remedial service for purposes of ICWA. Visitation as part of a parenting class or other therapy might be part of a remedial service, but consistent with T.H., visitation in and of itself is not “remedial.”
Finally, even assuming visitation is a remedial service, “ICWA does not require the State to continue making active efforts to remedy parental deficiencies at the expense of physical or emotional damage to the child.”43 Numerous courts have held that active efforts under the federal ICWA does not mean persisting with futile efforts.44***
He also claims that, due to his severe mistrust of the child welfare system, the Department was required to “determine a different approach” to working with him in order to engage him in services.48 But services were coordinated through the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and Louch cites no authority supporting his argument that the Department did not engage in active efforts by failing to provide access to the specific cultural activities referenced above.4
According to the opinion, the child in this case was placed with an American Indian family who are also taking care of her two other siblings.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.