Here is the opinion in Dept. of Human Services v. T.G.:
ICWA
Alaska SCT Affirms Grant of Full Faith and Credit to Native Village of Tanana Court Order under ICWA
California SCT Decides State ICWA Statutory Interpretation Issue
Here is the opinion in In re Ja.O.
NARF’s Work in Alaska Over 40 Years
The Native American Rights Fund has provided legal assistance to Tribes in Alaska since NARF’s founding in the early 1970s. In 1984, NARF opened an Alaska office so it could better serve Alaska Native Tribes and individuals. In the 40 years since NARF Alaska opened its doors, the office has litigated some of the most influential cases in the development of federal Indian law in Alaska. Below is an overview of the foundational work that NARF has done with and on behalf of Alaska Native Tribal governments and people.
Neoshia Roemer on Equity for American Indian Families
Neoshia Roemer has published “Equity for American Indian Families” in the Minnesota Law Review. PDF
Here is the abstract:
For the better part of two centuries, the cornerstone of federal Indian policy was destabilizing and eradicating tribal governments. In the process, federal Indian policy also dismantled American Indian families via child removal. Attempting to equalize American Indians through the practice of assimilation, decades of Indian child removal policies destroyed Indian families. In 1978, Congress responded to these horrors by passing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a revolutionary law that was responsive to its trust responsibility to American Indian Tribes. By providing for the best interests of Indian children, heightened protections for parents of Indian children in certain child custody proceedings, and vesting Tribes with a legally recognizable interest in their children’s futures, Congress issued a referendum on equality for American Indians and the very nature of colonialism.
For nearly fifty years, ICWA has governed certain child custody proceedings involving Indian children in state courts. In 2018, a group of state and private actors decided to challenge ICWA’s constitutionality in Haaland v. Brackeen. Among their claims, these parties alleged that ICWA violated the equal protection rights of potential adoptive parents who are non-Indian and that ICWA placed Indian children at a disadvantage. However, just beneath the surface of these claims lies the real allegation: American Indian children should be available for the “good families” or for the “right kind of families” to adopt them. By claiming American Indians had special rights via ICWA, these plaintiffs hoped to re-introduce a version of equality that allowed generations of federal, state, and individual actors to enact assimilationist policies. Ultimately, the goal of equality in this area remains to ensure that “good families” maintain access to Indian children. Contrary to congressional goals, Indian children remain a commodity in demand for “good families” looking to save Indian children.
Blending family law, federal Indian law, and constitutional law, this Article evaluates the fallacy in applying the Equal Protection Clause to claims about ICWA. In doing so, this Article demonstrates that ICWA contains an anti-colonial equity principle that is contrary to the equal protection doctrine—a doctrine that Congress knew could never apply when the matter came to accessing the rights of American Indian families against those of the settlers, primarily because the rights of American Indian individuals are intricately linked to the federal trust responsibility. This Article argues that given ICWA’s character as an anti-colonial statute, applying the Equal Protection Clause to it will only stand to yield absurd results in furtherance of a colonial project that Congress has abandoned. Instead of the equality the Supreme Court promises through its equal protection doctrine, ICWA’s mandate requires equity.
Oklahoma SCT Affirms ICWA Tribal Court Transfer Order
Oklahoma SCT Affirms ICWA Transfer to Cherokee Court . . . But Has Notes
Oklahoma SCT Holds State ICWA Law [OICWA] Recognizes Fathers’ Rights
Here is the opinion in In re J.O.
Excerpt:
¶14 Rather than answer that question, COCA took a detour. Relying primarily on a United States Supreme Court case, COCA determined that, if Parker never had a relationship with Child, the requirements of ICWA Sections 1912(d) and (f) would not apply. As the trial court never made a specific finding regarding the nature of Parker’s relationship with Child, COCA ordered the trial court on remand to make that finding. COCA then concluded if there was no relationship the State would not have to make the necessary showings under ICWA. Parker petitioned for certiorari, arguing that COCA misapplied federal and Oklahoma law regarding ICWA. We agree.
¶15 The ICWA Section 1912 requirements are intended to respect and preserve the tribes’ interest in the custody and care of its children, and the detrimental impact to a child of placement outside its culture, in addition to and independent of any parental custodial interest. Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 49-50. Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma ICWA (OICWA) to clarify state policies and procedures used to implement the federal statutory scheme. After Holyfield, the Legislature amended the OICWA policy statement to recognize that “Indian tribes and nations have a valid governmental interest in Indian children regardless of whether or not said children are in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian at the time state proceedings are initiated.” 10 O.S. § 40.1. And the OICWA applies “to all state voluntary and involuntary child custody court proceedings involving Indian children, regardless of whether or not the children involved are in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian at the time state proceedings are initiated.” 10 O.S. § 40.3(B). We presume that the Legislature was aware of the previous statutory language and intended these amendments to change the statutes accordingly. In the Matter of Baby Boy L., 2004 OK 93, ¶ 18, 103 P.3d 1099, 1105-06. Thus, under OICWA, whether a parent has a relationship with the child is not determinative of the tribe’s independent interest.
¶16 This Court reinforced this policy in Baby Boy L. There, the non-Indian mother refused father’s attempts to be active in the baby’s life and sought a non-Indian adoption outside the reservation. Indian father objected to the adoption, and the tribe intervened, moving to dismiss the adoption and seeking ICWA compliance. The trial court applied a doctrine called the “existing Indian family exception.” This doctrine, applied in a minority of states, requires that for ICWA to apply a child must be living in an Indian home, or already have a primarily Indian cultural heritage, or are otherwise somehow culturally “Indian”, rather than applying the federal ICWA definitions of Indian children. This Court, interpreting the OICWA amended language, concluded that through the amendments the Legislature had explicitly repudiated the “existing Indian family” exception to ICWA, and that exception could not be applied under Oklahoma law. Baby Boy L., 2004 OK 93, ¶ 18, 103 P.3d at 1105-06.
AFCARS Final Rule Has Been Released
This rule finalizes revisions to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations proposed on February 23, 2024. This final rule requires state title IV-E agencies to collect and report to ACF additional data related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) for children in the AFCARS Out-of-Home Care Reporting Population.
As you may recall, there was a rule promulgated in 2016 which was almost immediately withdrawn and replaced with a 2020 rule. It has taken another four years for the Biden administration to issue this rule. Regardless, if this rule holds, in three years all states will be required to collect ICWA data in state court cases.
States with ICWA Pro Hac Vice Waivers
Late last month, Montana adopted a new rule allowing out of state attorneys to practice in ICWA cases and waiving certain requirements. This brings the total number of states with these kind of waivers to twelve (that I am aware of). If your state doesn’t have one of these, it’s a pretty straight forward rule to advocate for. If your state does have one of these, check in with practitioners to see if they are able to access your electronic filing system once they waive in. Or work on forms regarding appeals so intervened tribes are aware when appeals involving ICWA are filed by parents.
Anyway, great job everyone. Next year it will be ten years since Nebraska included the right in their state ICWA and nine years since we passed the rule in Michigan. These rules make a huge difference for tribal attorneys and ensures their state bar license remains safe while fully representing their tribal client in ICWA cases.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.