ICWA

Job Opening: NICWA Development Manager

Kate Fort

Please assist us in recruiting qualified applicants for a development manager position at NICWA. The closing date is March 9.

The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), based in Portland, Oregon, is seeking a development manager adept in maximizing opportunities for benefactor generosity and achieving fund raising goals. This is an outstanding opportunity for an outgoing development professional to make a difference in the lives of children in American Indian communities across North America. The ideal candidate is adept in sequential and systematic networking, relationship nurturing, follow-through, and time management. Success is achieved through

  • strategic marketing;
  • industrious networking; and
  • friendly, persistent, and patient adherence to development processes.

Qualifications: AS/BS/BA in business marketing, communications, journalism, media relations, or equivalent specialized experience. The ability to plan, implement and achieve development program goals is paramount. Friendly and engaging interaction with executives; proven expertise in previous development campaigns; and experience working in American Indian culture, Indian Country, and tribal child welfare systems also required. Travel 15%-20%.

Salary range: $45K to $65K DOE; excellent benefit package. Email resume, cover letter, six professional references, and salary history to Carmen Farmer at Carmen@nicwa.org or fax to her at (503) 222-4007 or mail to NICWA, 5100 SW Macadam Ave, #300, Portland, OR 97239 by March 9, 2012

The job description can be found on the NICWA website at www.nicwa.org/careers/.

 

Florida Appellate Court Reverses Parental Termination Due to ICWA Notice Violation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in G.L. v. Department of Children and Families (Fla. App. 5th Dist.).

An excerpt:

The father, G.L., appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, T.M.L. He contends that the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1901-1963 (2010), were not met. We agree, reverse the judgment, and remand with directions.

***

For these reasons, we reverse the termination order and remand this case to the trial court so that proper notice may be provided. On remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether T.M.L. is an Indian child under the ICWA. If, after notice and hearing, the trial court determines that T.M.L. is an Indian child, the trial court shall conduct a new trial applying the requirements and standards of the ICWA. If, after notice and a hearing, the trial court determines that T.M.L. is not an Indian child, the trial court may re-enter the termination order terminating the rights of the parents. See S.B. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 679 So. 2d 57, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reversing order terminating parental rights but stating that on remand, upon resolving notice issue, court may re-issue termination order).

 

News Coverage of Whiteclay Suit: “Gold Mines in Hell”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

Whiteclay, Nebraska. Population 14, exists only to sell alcohol to Native Americans already reeling from its damage. / Photo by Stephanie Woodard

Additionally, the reporter, Stephanie Woodward, conducted three interviews with Indian country professionals (Diane Garreau, Frank LaMere, Danialle Rose) on Indian child welfare in the aftermath of the NPR profile from last year.

 

Minnesota Legislative Bill to “Fix” the Recent Minn. SCT Decision In re R.S.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

12-5238

The bill would reverse the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in In re R.S., which held that:

1. The plain language of 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) (2006) is not ambiguous and, with respect to an Indian child not residing or domiciled within the child’s tribe’s reservation, permits transfer to tribal court of only foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings.

2. The provision of the 2007 Tribal/State Agreement requiring transfer of “any child placement/custody proceedings” is void to the extent that it purports to require transfer of preadoptive and adoptive placement proceedings involving an Indian child not residing or domiciled on the reservation of the child’s tribe.

3. With respect to an Indian child not residing or domiciled on the child’s tribe’s reservation, Rule 48 of the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, providing for transfer of “the juvenile protection matter” to the tribal court of an Indian child’s tribe, is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings.

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Cal. State Court ICWA Case Disposition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Belinda K. v. Baldovinos (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Denying Belinda K’s Motion

 

Briefs in Merrill v. Altman (S.D. ICWA Case Previously Posted)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

We posted the South Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion from December here.

Here are the briefs:

Merrill Opening Brief

Altman Brief

Merrill Reply

Nevada SCT Holds that Tribal-State Agreement Can Trump ICWA Exclusive Tribal Jurisdiction Provision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is that opinion:

128nevadvopno2.pdf

An excerpt:

This appeal requires us to decide whether, under section 1919 of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (2006), a tribal-state agreement respecting child custody proceedings may vest a Nevada district court with subject matter jurisdiction to take a relinquishment of parental rights under circumstances where section 1911(a) of the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a), would otherwise lay exclusive jurisdiction with the tribal court. We conclude that the ICWA,  in keeping with fundamental principles of tribal autonomy, allows for tribal-state agreements for concurrent jurisdiction even when the tribe would have exclusive jurisdiction absent an agreement. Therefore, we affirm.

 

The tribal-state agreement the court relies on is an agreement for this case alone, which arose from what appears to be a great example of tribal-state court cooperation. The state court involved the tribe prior to the children being eligible for membership, and thus prior to ICWA applying. When the children became eligible (based on a change in the tribe’s membership rules), the court began applying ICWA. After termination of parental rights, the state court transferred the case to tribal court for adoption proceedings. The children were not placed with their foster family, which is what led to the mother bringing the case. While it’s possible this case could be used to hurt tribal jurisdiction, from the outside at least, it appears to be a case of cooperation that benefited both the children and the tribe.

 

 

Michigan Judges Association Resolution (Unanimously Passed) in Favor of Proposed Michigan Indian Family Protection Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

resolution in support mifpa

Oral Argument Video in Michigan SCT ICWA Cases Morris and Gordon

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Article: Vision from the Bench to Fulfill ICWA Promise

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Vision from the Bench to Fulfill the ICWA Promise (1)

1/18/12 •

It has been 33 years since the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed, and it is important to take the time to evaluate the impact on the child welfare system since that time.