ICWA Jurisdiction Case out of North Carolina

Here.

Finding the tribe, not the state, has exclusive jurisdiction over child welfare issues arising on tribal land. Also interesting is the state courts’ continued resistance to recognizing tribal-state agreements surrounding ICWA (pp 9-12) (see, eg, In re R.S. (Minn. 2011)).

For purposes of the ICWA, Ellen’s domicile was that of her
parents. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490
U.S. 30, 48, 104 L. Ed. 2d 29, 46 (1989). At the time DSS filed
the juvenile petition on 8 November 2011, respondents were
domiciled in Cherokee, North Carolina, within the Tribe’s Qualla
Boundary land trust.4 Therefore, this case is governed by 25
U.S.C. § 1911, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the tribal court, “except where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in
the State by existing Federal law.” 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a).

AAIA and NICWA Legal Guide to Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Here. (pdf)
Includes summary of the case and legal analysis, including the impact of state statutes and tribal/state agreements.

Dustin Brown to Stop All Legal Proceedings

Tulsa World coverage here.

Ending a custody battle that stretched across two states and dragged on for nearly four years, Dusten Brown will drop all litigation in the “Baby Veronica” case, he announced Thursday.
“I cannot bear to continue it any longer,” Brown said, holding back tears. “I love her too much to continue.”

Dissents in the Lift of Stay in Baby Girl Case and Additional Coverage of Proceedings

From the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Here.

 In addition to Veronica’s interests, the Cherokee Nation has been a party to all of the proceedings in the courts of South Carolina, in the United States Supreme Court, and in the courts of this State. As such, the Cherokee Nation has a direct and substantial interest in seeing that Veronica’s rights as an Indian child and member of the Cherokee Nation are fully protected, including the right to the special best interests determination under the law of the case. It would be virtually impossible for any court to make this special best interests determination without hearing from the Cherokee Nation.

Reif, V.C.J.

 

Everything in the life of Baby Girl has changed since 2011, and therefore, I cannot join the majority’s decision to dissolve the temporary stay and to deny original jurisdiction.1 Although this is a complicated case, we should accept our legal responsibility to follow established law in making a determination having such a profound impact on the life of this child.

Gurich, J.

H/T Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Today’s Tulsa World coverage here (including a discussion of the contempt charges in South Carolina).

Blatant Notice Disregard in California ICWA Case

Here. The decision is unpublished. It isn’t just cases where the parent is unsure of their tribal affiliation where this is happening.

In August 2011, at the outset of this case, John told the social worker that he was “a member of the Mission Digueno Tribe[,] a band of the Kumeyaay Indians,” and had a roll number. John also said that he had “Native American Ancestry with the Chumash Tribe in the Santa Ynez reservation….” In his Parentage Inquiry, he declared he had “Chumash and Digueno” heritage. In his Parental Notification of Indian Status, he declared he might have Indian ancestry through a Kumeyaay Tribe and a “Mission Digueno / Chumash” band. In September, John’s sister gave the social worker the roll number shared by all family members.
The social worker sent incomplete ICWA notices to the tribes. Most of the notices listed the roll number only in connection with a relative, did not explain how that relative was related to Matthew and did not explain that the whole family shared the roll number. Most of the notices omitted known information that John and other paternal relatives had received medical and dental treatment at an Indian health clinic. Most of the notices listed a Chumash Tribe association only for the paternal great-grandmother.
None of the responses to the ICWA notices were positive. The court found that ICWA did not apply. In May 2013, the court terminated parental rights.

Coverage of Transfer of Veronica to Adoptive Couple

Tulsa World here.

SCOTUSblog here.

Indian Country Today here.

Tulsa World: Discussions in Baby Girl Case End Without Settlement (Updated)

Here.

Before proceeding with the appeal, the state’s high court required last week’s mediation conference at the Court of Civil Appeals in Tulsa, where the families spent five days in negotiations and returned to the courthouse Monday morning for less than an hour.

The case now goes back to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

ETA: Additional information with statement from Cherokee Nation Attorney General. It appears that the OK Supreme Court lifted the stay. Here.

“This order, just like any other order from a foreign jurisdiction needs to be filed for domestication with the Cherokee Nation District Court,” said Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree. “There is a conflicting Cherokee Nation order concerning a Cherokee Nation citizen on Cherokee Nation land. We are a sovereign nation with a valid and historic court system.

“As Attorney General, I will require that our court system be honored and respected. I took an oath when assuming this office to uphold the laws and constitution of the Cherokee Nation and the United States. Nowhere in that oath is it required that I defend the laws of South Carolina.”

Article on Judge Thorne’s Retirement from the Bench

Here.

As a side note, Judge Thorne spent the last few days in Montana, doing an incredible job encouraging the tribes and state to work together to find ways to achieve better outcomes for Indian kids. Given the work he plans on doing in his retirement, we think “retirement” should really be in quotes. Which is lucky for all of us.

Deconstructing the Baby Veronica Case, Implications for Working with Fathers in Indian Child Welfare Practice, Upcoming Event

This event will be held on October 29, 2013 at the University of Minnesota.

After looking at the list of presenters and panelists, I am certain this is going to be a very interesting, informative, and probably lively event.

Presenters

Judge William Thorne
Utah Court of Appeals

Chrissi Nimmo
Assistant Attorney General of hte Cherokee Nation

Mark Fiddler
Attorney representing the Capobianco Family

Erma J. Vizenor
Chairwoman, White Earth Nation

Panelists

Terry Cross
Executive Director
National Indian Child Welfare Association

Essie Leoso

Mary Boo
Assistant Director
North American Council on Adoptable Children

Moderator

Sarah Deer
Assistant Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law

Here is the registration link.

Tulsa World Continues its Generally Excellent Coverage of Baby Girl Case

Q&A from Sunday here. Particularly useful is the timeline and list of current court cases.