Rule here.
Letter regarding the rule: 18-04-Ltr to Interested Persons.
Comments due by November 29.
Any comment to the rule petition should be filed by November 29, 2018, with the Clerk of Supreme Court, Attention: Deputy Clerk-Rules, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688. If possible, email a Microsoft Word version of your response to clerk@wicourts.gov. See comment guidelines at the court’s website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/petitioncomment.htm.
This case discusses how private parties (grandparents) can provide active efforts in a guardianship situation. This further develops this state case law in this area, most recently addressed in In re Micah H. (Neb. 2016), In re T.A.W. (Wash. 2016) and In re S.S. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017):
In this case, Tyler was counseled by Linda concerning his drug and alcohol problems. The record shows that Linda suggested
multiple treatment programs in which Tyler could seek rehabilitation for his addiction. However, Linda and Daniel had no control with regard to forcing Tyler to seek treatment.The record demonstrates that Linda and Daniel discussed proper parenting techniques and interactions with small children. Further, Linda and Daniel assisted with scheduling visitation
and the implementation of a parenting plan. Tyler demonstrated no need for housing, financial support, or transportation
to unite with Micah. Despite Tyler’s numerous criminal convictions involving drugs and alcohol, Tyler maintained that he
does not suffer from drug or alcohol addiction.With the exception of completing parenting classes while in prison, Tyler has not sought to actively participate in drug and alcohol treatment or support programs. In fact, Tyler has attended only one Alcoholics Anonymous meeting while in prison, at the invitation of another, and suggested to the court
below that his presence at the meeting was for the purpose of supporting others in the program.Based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we find that Linda and Daniel undertook active efforts to provide
remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to unite Tyler and Micah.
Here is the order:
JUDGE ORDER:A petition for rehearing has been filed by the appellees in the above cases. The court requests a response to the petition. The response is limited to 3900 words and must contain a word count certificate. The response should be filed electronically. Response due on 11/08/2018 by Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle and Lisa Fleming. Hrg Feb 2018 [4720385] [17-1135, 17-1136, 17-1137] (JPP)
The petition is here.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, one of the oldest and largest judicial membership organizations in the country serving an estimated 30,000 professionals in the juvenile and family justice system has released a statement supporting ICWA.
The full statement is available here
The Honorable John J. Romero, Jr. President, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (bold added by me):
It’s imperative to preserve the rights, culture, connections, and traditions of Indian children and their families. The disproportionate numbers of American Indian and Alaska Native children in our child welfare system persist almost 40 years after ICWA became law. Consequently, the new ICWA rules and regulations enacted in 2016 promote the uniform application of ICWA and to advance and protect Indian children’s best interests.
Our American Indian and Alaska Native children are essential to the security and stability of each tribe. In each ICWA proceeding, the judicial officer and other court professionals should be mindful that children are the heart of the law. Committed uniform application of ICWA and the Regulations will advance and protect the best interests of each child and enhance tribal security and stability.
My research has failed to uncover a single example of how removing control, jurisdiction, or authority from tribal governments improves outcomes for the AIAN population. While tribal governments are not perfect by any means, it cannot be shown with any credibility that removal of tribal government authority has improved outcomes for the American Indian population – not in policing, governance, education policy, environmental protection, or civil jurisdiction – and certainly not for child welfare.
Court documents, press statements, and news articles all organized here.
Here.
An excerpt:
Nicole Adams and other advocates are calling for Indian Country’s leaders and tribes to act now to protect ICWA and the sovereignty of tribes before it is too late. Adams warns, “we don’t want to look back twenty years from now and ask ourselves what were we doing when ICWA was threatened.”
Partnership for Native Children Decries Anti-ICWA Decision
Calls judge’s ruling ‘an outlier, out of step with the law and constitutional jurisprudence’
The Partnership for Native Children strongly disagrees with and is disturbed by Judge O’Connor’s decision in Brackeen v. Zinke which has stricken down the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) four decades after it was enacted. This is the first decision of its kind, and is an outlier—out of step with the law and decades of constitutional jurisprudence.
With the support and guidance of a longstanding coalition of anti-ICWA activists, the plantiffs in Brackeen want to remove ICWA’s provisions that protect against removing Native children from their parents and culture, leaving unfettered access to Native children. Not content with that outcome, they wish to undermine the U.S. Constitution and centuries of established law by eradicating tribes’ Constitutionally-protected relationship with the United States government.
Although this decision is limited in application, it serves as a roadmap for other ICWA litigation intending to overturn ICWA and we should expect future litigation seeking to undermine tribal sovereignty and federal Indian law writ large.
Emboldened by the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl decision in 2013, these anti-ICWA forces—led by the adoption industry, religious coalitions, and a conservative think tank—have spent years bringing forth suit after suit in courts throughout the country, sometimes even using identical briefs in different forums, all in the attempt to have ICWA declared unconstitutional. After losing each case, due in part to their outrageous contention that ICWA is a race-based law (it is not), they have finally found a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas sympathetic to their arguments.
While they choose to ignore thousands of testimonials from Native families who assert that those who will be most hurt by this decisions are our most sacred and vulnerable children, the Partnership for Native Children stands with Indian Country and affirms that we will continue to fight for them. We support legal efforts to appeal this unprecedented decision. We will work tirelessly to demand the media cover these issues thoroughly and responsibly. And we will work closely with those children, families, and tribes who want their perspectives finally included in the national dialogue about the best interests of our children. Their voices have been ignored for far too long.
The Partnership for Native Children refuses to go back to those the days where tribal children were removed simply because of cultural misunderstandings, for financial gain, and due to pure prejudice. We also refuse to let extremist groups use our children as a tool to undermine the foundations of Indian law and tribal sovereignty.
The Partnership for Native Children remains unwavering in our commitment to defend the constitutionality of ICWA by all available means and will continue to work in support of tribes and Native people throughout the country to ensure that Native children, families, and tribes are protected.
Here is our press release.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.