ICWA

Louis LaRose Walks On

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Louis LaRose, former chair of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, has walked on. News profile here.

As chairman, Mr. LaRose testified on behalf of the bill that would become the Indian Child Welfare Act. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield quoted extensively from Louis’s testimony. Footnote 25 reads:

In large part, the concerns that emerged during the congressional hearings on the ICWA were based on studies showing recurring developmental problems encountered during adolescence by Indian children raised in a white environment. See n. 1, supra.See also 1977 Hearings at 114 (statement of American Academy of Child Psychiatry); S.Rep. No. 95-597, p. 43 (1977) (hereinafter Senate Report). More generally, placements in non-Indian homes were seen as “depriving the child of his or her tribal and cultural heritage.” Id. at 45; see also 124 Cong.Rec. 38102-38103 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Lagomarsino). The Senate Report on the ICWA incorporates the testimony in this sense of Louis La Rose, chairman of the Winnebago Tribe, before the American Indian Policy Review Commission:”I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption courts, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family that has a value system that is A-1 in the State of Nebraska and that child reaches 16 or 17, he is a little brown child residing in a white community, and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person, and I think . . . they destroy him.”Senate Report at 43. Thus, the conclusion seems justified that, as one state court has put it, “[t]he Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child’s best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected.” In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz., at 204, 635 P.2d at 189.

Thanks to Lucas LaRose.

First Tribal Title IV-B 477 Integration

Kate Fort

I am very excited about this. It’s the first step in loosening up the restrictions on HHS money that needs to be flowing to tribes for social service and justice systems.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2023/first-tribal-integration-title-iv-b-child-welfare-programs-477-plan

The new integration comes under Public Law 102-477 (P.L. 102-477). Specifically, ACF recommended, and BIA approved for Citizen Potawatomi Nation, to integrate its child welfare services grants with several other federal grants for employment, training and related services into a single program and budget to address Tribal priorities. 

“Public Law 102-477 has long been critical legislation for ACF to promote Tribal sovereignty, and expansion to include new ACF programs helps meet our nation-to-nation responsibilities,” said ACF Acting Assistant Secretary Jeff Hild. “The feedback we hear from our Tribal advisory committee and Tribal leaders is Tribes know best how to serve their citizens, and 477 is one way to do this.” 

Under P.L. 102-477, Tribes can integrate their federal employment, training and related services from across the federal government to improve the effectiveness of those services. Tribes wishing to integrate a program into a 477 plan must first submit a proposed plan to DOI that identifies the programs to be integrated and consolidated. Once a program is included in such a plan, Tribes have very broad flexibility in use of those funds. 

Native America Calling Episode about Enforcing ICWA Today @ 1PM Eastern

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Description:

A non-Native woman in Alaska refuses to abide by a tribal court order to turn an Alaska Native foster child over to the girl’s family members. It’s a blatant disregard of tribal sovereignty even after a notable re-affirmation of the Indian Child Welfare Act by the U.S. Supreme Court. The woman took custody of the child, named Chanel, at the request of the girl’s father, right before he was convicted of murdering Chanel’s mother during a domestic dispute. We’ll look at that case, as well as efforts to bolster ICWA compliance elsewhere.

Case materials here.

Comment Deadline to Feds on ICWA Needs Extended to January 12

Kate Fort

This extension is regarding the letter in this post.

The Administration (DOI, HHS, and DOJ) are asking for input on the following:

What additional supports would Tribal leaders find helpful to build their Tribe’s capacity to exercise their rights and responsibilities under ICWA?  

Are there specific supports you believe the federal government could provide to help state courts and child welfare agencies meet their obligations under ICW A? 

In your experience, are there specific aspects or requirements of ICWA where state courts and agencies need to build greater understanding or capacity? 

Are there existing State-Tribe collaborative partnerships or processes that you believe have helped support effective implementation ofICWA? 

icwa_dear_tribal_leader_letter_to_extend_comment_deadline_enrd_comment_hhs.doj_.doi_final_10.06.23Download

Montana Indian Law Section: ICWA, the Brackeen Decision & MT ICWA Statute — November 1, 2023

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Tentative Agenda

Noon to 1 p.m.: The Impacts of the Brackeen Decision Moving Forward – 

1 to 2 p.m.: How the Brackeen Decision and the Recently Passed Montana ICWA Statute Will Impact Practitioners in Montana. 

Speakers

Professor Matthew Fletcher: Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law the University of Michigan Law School

Kimberly Cluff: California Tribal Family Coalition

Kelly Driscoll: Montana Office of the State Public Defender, Missoula

April Olson: Rothstein Donatelli, Tempe, Arizona

Important Article on the Rise of Foster Parent Interventions in The New Yorker/ProPublica

Kate Fort

I’ve been posting and talking about this issue for a while now, and am very happy to see it highlighted in this article. The Colorado Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel has been collecting incredibly important data (headed up by a proud MSU alum!) on what happens when foster parents intervene. I strongly encourage anyone in the position to do so to begin collecting this same data.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

Intervenors can file motions, enter evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses to argue that a child would be better off staying with them permanently, even if the birth parents — or other family members, such as grandparents — have fulfilled all their legal obligations to provide the child with a safe home. When Carter’s foster parents intervened in the hope of keeping him, they turned to the firm of Tim Eirich, a Denver adoption attorney who charges as much as $400 an hour and has almost single-handedly systematized intervention in Colorado.

***

The Trump and Biden administrations have both pressed states to keep a larger percentage of kids with birth parents or kin. Intervention, a state-level counter-trend, is supported by foster parents’ rights groups and advocates at national conservative organizations.

***

Since 2018, South Carolina’s courts and lawmakers have affirmed the right of any state resident to file to adopt any foster child, as well as the right of foster parents to intervene. In 2020, Kentucky amended its law to let foster parents intervene as legal parties in involuntary terminations of birth parents’ rights. And this year Florida passed a law saying that if birth parents move to have their child adopted, including by a biological family member, long-term foster parents can intervene to contest that outcome. Kathryn Fort, the director of the Indian Law Clinic at Michigan State University, told me that her practice has faced three sets of intervenors this year, all of them non-Native couples seeking to adopt a Native child.

Second ULC Listening Session on Uniform State ICWA Law on Nov. 6

Kate Fort

In a letter that went out on September 26, the Uniform Law Commission announced a second listening session on the benefits and drawbacks of a potential model state ICWA law.

TribalLeaderLetter_092623

The registration link is here

 

 

UConn Law Review Symposium — Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen: Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience [October 6, 2023]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The Connecticut Law Review invites you to their 2023 symposium: Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen: Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience The litigation that led to Haaland v. Brackeen threatened to take down not only the Indian Child Welfare Act, but vast swaths of federal Indian policy and federal law. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision left ICWA unscathed and affirmed the constitutional relationship between tribal nations and the United States. But threats to Native families and tribal sovereignty continue. Native children continue to be removed from their communities by a market for adoptable children. A handful of states and interest groups continue to seek ways to challenge tribal authority and federal laws that support it. And because the Supreme Court held that the Brackeen plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their equal protection challenges to ICWA, those claims can be raised another day. Leading scholars, attorneys, and tribal leaders will explore these and other issues raised by the decision in this symposium.

Connecticut Law Review Symposium on Brackeen, Oct. 6

Kate Fort

Here.

Connecticut Law Review Symposium: 
Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen

Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience

Friday, October 6, 2023 | 12:00 pm-2:30 pm ET
Virtual

The Connecticut Law Review invites you to their 2023 symposium:
Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen: Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience

The litigation that led to Haaland v. Brackeen threatened to take down not only the Indian Child Welfare Act, but vast swaths of federal Indian policy and federal law. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision left ICWA unscathed and affirmed the constitutional relationship between tribal nations and the United States. But threats to Native families and tribal sovereignty continue.

Native children continue to be removed from their communities by a well-funded market for adoptable children. A handful of states and interest groups continue to seek ways to undermine tribal authority and federal laws that support it. And because the Supreme Court held that the Brackeen plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their equal protection challenges to ICWA, those claims can be raised another day.

Leading scholars, attorneys, and tribal leaders, including Chairwoman Andrews-Maltais, Gregory Ablavsky, Laura Briggs, Seth Davis, Kate Fort, Ian Gershengorn, and Gerald Torres, will explore these and other issues raised by the decision in this symposium.