From the Seattle Times here.
The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Takes Total Control of Child Welfare
From the Seattle Times here.
Child Welfare
Unpublished ICWA Opinion out of Nebraska
The court found that the denial of transfer to tribal court was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court. In this case the blood quantum requirements of the tribe initially led to a determination that the children were not eligible for membership, though it turns out the determination was in error. Because of the error, the tribe was late to intervene, and the trial court denied transfer. The State and the GAL opposed transfer, and the court used a best interests standard to deny transfer. It’s not a pretty opinion and touches on a number of the usual issues involved in these cases (permanency, termination of parental rights, whether foster care placement and termination proceedings are separate or intrinsically linked).
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 2nd Judicial Symposium
Save the Date is here: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 2nd Judicial Symposium
The Pundit: Enforcing State Child Support Orders in Tribal Courts in Michigan
A publication of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), The Pundit is primarily for those working on child support issues, including Friend of the Court. The editors asked for an article detailing how tribal courts recognize foreign (state) court child support orders. All of the information came from inquiries to the tribal courts in Michigan. The article includes detailed contact information for the tribes as well.
The publication is here. (PDF)
MN Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Case
On appeal from the denial of a petition to return custody, appellant argues that
(a) a challenge to a petition for return of custody under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901␣1963 (2006), requires application of all subsections of section 1912 to determine whether reunification is not in the child’s best interests, (b) the district court erred in concluding that remedial services provided to appellant five years ago satisfied ICWA’s requirement to demonstrate active efforts to provide appellant remedial services, and (c) the district court erred in determining that no showing of harm to appellant’s child was required under ICWA because appellant did not retain continued custody after voluntarily terminating her parental rights. Because (1) section 1916(a) requires district courts to apply all subsections of section 1912 in determining whether reunification is not in a child’s best interests, (2) the district court erred in concluding that the active-efforts requirement under section 1912(d) was satisfied, and (3) the district court erred by making no findings under section 1912(f), we reverse and remand.
Results of Childhood Abuse, Neglect, and Economic Hardship from a Scientific Perspective
Yesterday the Forum at Harvard School of Public Health hosted an event to discuss the long term toxic stress consequences on children. The video can be found here.
From the Summary:
Evidence suggests that for the youngest children, prolonged or severe exposure to abuse, neglect and economic hardship – exacerbated by a dearth of stable, supportive relationships with adults – can provoke a “toxic stress response” with lifelong consequences. Such stress may influence brain development and increase the risk for illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes. While efforts have been made for decades to intervene early in children’s lives, the results have not always been resounding. This Forum event examined how health and education policies can be both harnessed and revamped to counteract early childhood adversity and included a discussion of a new policy statement, “Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health,” issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
More Spying by the Canadian Government–Child Welfare Edition
The article is in the Toronto Star:
Why is the federal government spying on Cindy Blackstock?
When does a life-long advocate for aboriginal children become an enemy of the state?
The answer, it would seem, is when you file a human rights complaint accusing your government of willfully underfunding child welfare services to First Nations children on reserves.
Accusing your government, in other words, of racial discrimination.
That’s what Blackstock, as executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, did in 2007.
Since that time, federal officials attended 75 to 100 meetings at which she spoke, then reported back to their bosses.
They went on her Facebook page during work hours, then assigned a bureaucrat to sign on as himself after hours to check it again looking for testimony from the tribunal.
On at least two occasions, they pulled her Status Indian file and its personal information, including data on her family.
H/T to our Senior Canadian Correspondent.
Turtle Talk 