ICWA

Unpublished ICWA Notice Case from Michigan Court of Appeals

Kate Fort

This is a pretty standard unpublished ICWA notice case (there have been 62 so far this year, 53 out of California, 3 from Michigan, 2 from Texas, and 1 each from Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and New Jersey). We’re posting it for two (three) reasons. From the opinion:

We also reject the father’s challenges to the notices’ failures to include a copy of the petition in LC No. 13–514918–NA. The father cites only 80 CFR 37, 10146, 1153–1154 (2015). This regulation contains the requirements for Native–American tribal notifications under 25 USC 1912(a). In relevant part, the regulation demands that a notice of a pending child custody proceeding contain “clear and understandable language and include” identifying information concerning the child, the tribes “in which the child … may be eligible for membership,” and “[a] copy of the petition, complaint or other document by which the proceeding was initiated.” 80 CFR 37(B)(6)(a)(1)-(3). But the father fails to identify any authority in support of the proposition that the failure to strictly adhere to the requirement that a tribal notice contain a petition copy demands conditional reversal.

(emphasis added).

1. There is still mass confusion over Guidelines v. Regulations, including which is currently effective, their binding nature, and how to cite them. It appears father’s attorney meant to cite 80 Fed. Reg. 10153-4 (Feb. 25, 2015), which are the 2015 Guidelines, not regulations, and not a CFR. The following quote is from the same source, though I admit I was stumped on where that 37 came from–BUT that’s the number of the applicable Federal Register: Volume 80, No. 37. Page 10153, Section B.6(a). But the Court of Appeals didn’t catch this mis-cite either.

2. Yes, the Guidelines are not binding, but the Court of Appeals apparently considered them regulations for the purposes of the opinion. And yes, the 2016 Regulations are not binding until December. However, that’s also not the court’s reasoning. The Michigan Court of Appeals here says there is no remedy for not following the Regulations. That there must be additional authority beyond that of the language of federal Regulations to justify sending it back to the lower court to do the work required–father (mis)cites only binding federal Regulations. This is a small issue in this case–it appears that notice on the whole was proper. But it also demonstrates the problem with the continued lack of an enforcement mechanism in these cases.

3. For the record, either the attorney or the court could have cited to the current Regulations, 23 CFR sec. 23.11(d)(4)(2005)(“a copy of the petition, complaint, or other document by which the proceeding was initiated”), which are currently binding. The attorney or court could also point to the Regulations which will be binding in December and moved that same requirement to sec. 23.111(d)(5)(“a copy of the petition, complaint, or other document by which the child custody proceeding was initiated . . .”), 81 Fed. Reg. 38864, 38871 (June 14, 2016).

California Supreme Court Denies Review in In re Alexandria P. (Choctaw ICWA Case)

Kate Fort

Docket here.

Documents and previous coverage here.

 

Important ICWA Case Out of Oklahoma on Application and Transfer to Tribal Court

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here. This is a long post, but there’s some data at the end! The Oklahoma Supreme Court wins favorite sentence in an ICWA case of 2016:

“Appellants’ [State of Oklahoma and foster mother] unlearned understanding of what is binding case law and attempts to broaden holdings of this Court, the United States Supreme Court [Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl], and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals [Neilson v. Ketchum], and ICWA’s provisions dealing with termination of parental rights will not support a reversal of the district court’s order. Because the district court did not err in granting the motion to transfer to tribal court, we affirm the order granting the motion to transfer.”

Facts (everything in bold is emphasis added):

M.H.C. (the child) was born in September of 2013. The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) placed the child in protective custody on November 5, 2013. In the initial petition filed on November 18, 2013, the State of Oklahoma1 (the State) declared ICWA’s provisions applicable. On November 21, 2013, the Cherokee Nation appeared at the initial appearance, and the natural mother informed the court that she had a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood but was not currently a tribal member.

¶3 Thereafter, the Cherokee Nation received official notice from the State that it planned to adjudicate the child as deprived. The Cherokee Nation sent DHS a response notifying DHS that the child was eligible for enrollment in the tribe and enclosing a tribal-enrollment application for DHS to complete. The Cherokee Nation testified it could not complete the application without access to the child’s case file and birth certificate. After the Cherokee Nation’s initial attempt to have DHS complete the enrollment application, the Cherokee Nation sent DHS three additional enrollment applications. DHS employee Ms. Choate testified to seeing at least one application and acknowledged that a DHS employee can fill out a child’s enrollment application without natural mother’s assistance. Ms. Choate testified she had previously filled out a child’s application to help the child gain tribal membership.

¶4 On December 3, 2013, the district court ruled ICWA inapplicable. At the first family team meeting, the Cherokee Nation, the natural mother, and DHS were present. The natural mother was informed if she gained membership in the Cherokee Nation, ICWA would apply. The natural mother was also told if ICWA applied, the child would likely have to leave foster mother’s care because foster mother was a non-ICWA compliant placement. No party informed the natural mother of ICWA’s benefits and protections.2 The natural mother declined to enroll at the time. The district court subsequently found the State broke confidentiality by allowing the Cherokee Nation to attend a family team meeting in a non-ICWA case.

¶5 In September 2014, the State filed a motion to terminate the natural mother’s rights due to her absence in the pending court proceedings.The State served the natural mother by publication. On December 18, 2014, the court entered a Default Order of Termination of Parental Rights against the natural mother for failure to appear and defend her rights to her child. On February 5, 2015, the natural mother became an enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation. On February 19, 2015, the Cherokee Nation filed a motion to intervene and, on March 24, 2015, filed a motion to transfer to tribal court. In the spring of 2015, the district court vacated the order terminating the natural mother’s rights due to statutorily defective service. On June 9, 2015, the district court found natural mother’s rights were still intact and the permanency plan should be reunification.

The Appellants made the following arguments as to why OICWA and ICWA should not apply:

1. “Appellant’s position is that congressional intent to limit ICWA’s reach is found in its rejection of a proposed definition of ‘Indian’ to include all persons eligible for membership in an Indian tribe within ICWA’s purview whether or not a parent was a tribal member.”

2. “OICWA, 10 O.S.2011 §§ 40-40.9, limits ICWA’s application to children who are Indian children prior to the proceedings’ initiation.”

3. “ICWA’s plain language prohibits applying ICWA to a case where the child is not in a parent’s custody at the time the child comes within ICWA’s definition of Indian child.”

4. “Their initial premise is that the child was not removed from an Indian family because the mother was not enrolled at the time the State removed the child. Appellants assert that pursuant to Section 1902’s policy statement, ICWA applies only to ‘intact Indian families,’ and no Indian family existed at the time of the child’s removal.” An argument the Oklahoma Supreme Court called “at best, confusing.”

The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that “[t]he provisions of ICWA become effective in a state child custody proceeding on the date that the record supports a finding that ICWA applies. Section 1911(b) became applicable, with prospective application, when the child met the definition of an Indian child under ICWA. Appellants have failed to provide any authority which would require a different finding.”

The Supreme Court also agreed that transfer was appropriate, stating among other things:

Appellants claim the best interests of the child support denial of the transfer to tribal court. The record does not support their argument. The goal of the district court’s permanency plan was reunification with the natural mother. Appellants failed to present any evidence which would show that transfer to tribal court would not promote this goal. Although Appellants introduced evidence of a bond with a half-sibling in the foster mother’s care, they introduced no evidence of a bond with the foster mother and failed to present any evidence of physical or emotional harm to the child if the proceedings were transferred to tribal court. Appellants’ evidence was that the child would suffer from a change in foster-care placement-an issue not before the district court or this Court. ICWA’s placement preference are applicable to district court proceeding. And lastly, the best interests of the child can just as easily be determined by the tribal court.One argument Appellants strongly imply is that a tribal court could not make this determination. Appellants have not supported this implication, and we refuse to make such a finding.

Since the last time a state appellate court has affirmed a lower court’s transfer to tribal court, (In re Jayda L., Neb. Ct. App. 2012), there have been at least 13 other transfer cases. Only 2 others ended up with a transfer to tribal court (Kansas, Nebraska). This is the 20th case ever where the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s transfer decision. In comparison, there have been 22 times where the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision to send the case to tribal court.

California COA ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Michael V.

An excerpt:

Kristina C., the mother of five-year-old Alissa M. and two-year-old K.C., appeals the juvenile court‟s September 29, 2105 order terminating her parental rights and identifying adoption as the permanent plan for her two daughters. Kristina contends the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We agree the Department failed to adequately investigate Kristina‟s claim of Indian ancestry, remand the matter to allow the Department and the juvenile court to fully comply with ICWA and related California law and otherwise conditionally affirm the order.

California Court of Appeals, 2nd District (17 reported and unreported notice appeals so far in 2016), continues to state what the Department’s role is in ICWA notice and inquiry:

The Department’s brief in this court reflects its misunderstanding of its duty to meet ICWA’s requirements. The Department attempts to defend its investigation by asserting, “Mother’s paternal aunt, who was present at the detention hearing, also never spoke up to indicate mother’s paternal family believed mother might have Indian heritage.” It was not the paternal great-aunt’s obligation to speak up; it was the Department’s obligation to inquire, an affirmative and continuing duty imposed by both ICWA and California law. (See In re Isaiah W., supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 10–11.)

Parent’s Attorney Misunderstands ICWA; Arkansas COA Goes Along With It

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in King v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services (Ark. Ct. App.):

King v Ark DHS Opinion

Maybe it’s a little thing, maybe not, but the court allowed an attorney to withdraw from representation, in part, on this representation:

The remaining adverse ruling was the denial of Hailey’s motion for a continuance, which was based on her assertion D.K. is an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act, entitling the Kiowa Tribe to notice of the proceedings. As explained in counsel’s brief, an Indian child is defined as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen [8]  and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.]” (Emphasis added.) 25 U.S.C. section 1903(4). Counsel further explains D.K.’s paternal grandmother, who was an enrolled member of the Kiowa tribe, testified that D.K.’s father, her son, was not eligible for membership in the Kiowa tribe because she was the last generation to satisfy the tribal requirement of at least one-quarter blood. Thus, her son could not be a member of the tribe. She further explained that her son was not enrolled in the Cherokee tribe either, even though he was allowed to receive medical treatment through the Cherokee Nation because she is a registered Indian and is his mother. As noted by counsel, “even if the father were eligible to be enrolled as a Cherokee, that fact is not relevant because the statute requires that he actually be enrolled in order for D.K. to be considered an Indian child.” We agree. D.K. is not an Indian child under the Act; consequently, it did not apply. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance because notice to an Indian tribe was not required.

Unfortunate, because the first step for parents’ counsel (and the child’s attorney most especially) should be to figure out whether an unenrolled parent is eligible for membership, get that parent enrolled, and get the tribe involved. Perhaps parent’s counsel is overworked and didn’t have the time or resources to make the effort, but did take the effort to file a notice of appeal. Deeply unfortunate, and likely endemic to the state system. The court of appeals could have done good work here and remanded to require counsel to perform diligently.

Kristen Carpenter on ICWA in Cato Unbound

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “One River, Two Canoes: Peace and Respect in Indian Child Welfare.”

Kristen’s first post in this series is here.

Third Fletcher Commentary on ICWA in Cato Unbound

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is “A History Lesson“:

An excerpt:

Reformers are still trying to save Indian children by taking them away from Indian families and tribes. Mr. Sandefur would rather force Indian children into state court systems by undoing ICWA, perhaps because they can be more easily plucked from state systems by the private adoption market. There have even been calls to greatly expand the number of Indian children in foster care. Literally no ethical person seeks to put more children in foster care. Studies show what should be inherently understood—plucking children out of a community they know and putting them in stranger foster care is actively harmful to kids (there’s a reason Casey Family Programs is putting a billion dollars into reducing the number of kids in foster care). Eighty percent of child welfare removals are due to neglect. Our children do deserve better: better services, better wrap around care, a better understanding of the mental health issues and chemical dependency that plagues their parents. They don’t deserve to be taken from everything familiar—their neighborhood, schools, and extended family—because of system failures in our society.

Imagine a child welfare proceeding where the judge meets with the parties for two hours before the hearing to engage in problem solving and to brainstorm creative ideas to best serve the child, followed by a formal hearing that may last two or more hours. Compare that to a state court hearing that lasts mere minutes, and where there are systematic financial pressures for “permanency,” in other words, to place children in foster care, terminate parental rights quickly, and adopt them out. It’s not even a comparison.

Prior entries here and here.

Fletcher: “The Next Justice’s Impact On The Indian Child Welfare Act” (law360.com)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Next Justice’s Impact On The Indian Child Welfare Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death impacts Indian country in dramatic ways. Last term, the most critical tribal court jurisdiction appeal to hit the Supreme Court of the United States in decades was affirmed by a 4-4 tie in favor of tribal jurisdiction. The court declined certiorari in a pair of tribal labor relations cases where there was a gaping circuit split, possibly because the justices foresaw yet another 4-4 tie. The next justice may be the deciding vote in cases that bring the same questions, but bigger cases involving the Indian Child Welfare Act(ICWA) are in the pipeline.

ICWA is invoked in literally hundreds of child welfare cases throughout the country every year. ICWA applies whenever an Indian child is removed from home by state agencies, and further applies when an Indian parent’s rights to a child might be terminated. ICWA requires state courts with jurisdiction over Indian children to notify relevant tribes and allow them to intervene as a party, and in some matters transfer jurisdiction to tribal court. ICWA more quietly establishes robust due process protections for Indian parents and Indian children, protections that Casey Family Programs and 16 other child welfare advocacy groups call the “gold standard” in child welfare statutes. Given that many state child welfare systems are bureaucratic nightmares where families can be lost, this is an important statement.

Continue reading →

Series of Articles on ICWA in the Minnesota Star Tribune

Kate Fort

Part I here.

Part II here.

Charts on the foster care disparities in Minnesota here.

Small piece on Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center here.

Published Decision out of the California Court of Appeals (ICWA Inquiry)

Kate Fort

Here

The father ultimately dropped his appeal of the ICWA inquiry, but the court’s comment is worth noting:

To be sure, the juvenile court’s analysis whether the evidence is sufficient to trigger ICWA’s notice requirements for Andrew and Kailey will be enhanced if additional information concerning Jonathan’s Indian ancestry is presented to the court. But the burden of developing that information is not properly placed on Jonathan alone. Section 224.3, subdivision (a), imposes on child protection agencies, as well as the juvenile court, the affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a dependent child is or may be an Indian child. (See In re Kadence P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1386; In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115, 121; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) As soon as practicable, the social worker is required to interview the child’s parents, extended family members, the Indian custodian, if any, and any other person who can reasonably be expected to have information concerning the child’s membership status or eligibility. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); In re Shane G. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1539; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4).) From the record presented to us, it appears the Department and the juvenile court failed to satisfy that duty; neither the court nor the Department made any effort to develop additional information that might substantiate Jonathan’s belief he may have Indian ancestry by contacting his siblings or other extended family members. Both federal and state law require more than has been done to date. On remand, an adequate investigation by the Department with a full report to the court must be promptly completed.