Here are the new materials in Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services:
Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing
Brief for Grandmother as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae In Support of Appellant
The court’s opinion is here.
Here is the opinion and the various briefs in In the Matter of S.B.C.:
Appellant Brief — Blackfeet Tribe
Appellee Brief — Response to Father
Appellee Brief — Response to Tribe
Appellee Brief — Response to Mother
Excerpts:
N.B. (Birth Mother) and S.B.C. (Biological Father) appeal from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, terminating both parents’ rights to their minor child, S.B.C, Jr. (S.B.C), and granting the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division (Child Services) permanent legal custody with right to consent to adoption. The Birth Mother and Biological Father also challenge the District Court’s order denying transfer of jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court. The Blackfeet Tribe (Tribe) has filed a cross-appeal likewise challenging the denial of its motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court and the termination of Biological Father’s parental rights. We affirm.
And:
Lastly, the Tribe argues the District Court improperly considered the socio-economic conditions of the Tribal Court. Subsection (c) of the Guidelines prohibit the consideration of the “[s]ocio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy” of the tribal court system in making a determination of good cause. 44 Fed.Reg. 67591. In an attempt to demonstrate that the court based its decision on the inadequacy of the Tribal Court system, the Tribe draws our attention to a number of assertions the District Court made in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court remarked throughout its findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Tribe “chose to sit on its hands and delay seeking jurisdiction over [S.B.C] for tribal financial reasons.” Further, the court insinuated that the Tribe believes its children are sacred “only when it is in its best financial interests to do so.”
From the dissent:
I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the “advanced stage” guideline. The State filed its termination petition on March 6, 2013. The Tribe, having intervened early in the case, moved to transfer jurisdiction on April 10, 2013, thirty-five days later. The District Court order faulted the Tribe for seeking transfer after “all the critical court proceedings [were] completed and decisions made,” yet the District Court had not conducted a hearing nor made a decision to terminate the parents’ rights. The hearing was not held until September 10, 2013, and the order of termination was not signed until January 15, 2014, eight months after the motion to transfer was filed. This situation does not implicate the dangers the “advanced stage” rule is designed to protect against and there is no indication of manipulation by any party.
And:
Finally, I agree with the majority that the District Court’s repeated statements that the Tribe “sat on its hands” until it had a financial reason to seek jurisdiction were inappropriate. The BIA Guidelines specifically provide that a state court cannot base the “good cause” determination on “socio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy of tribal social services or judicial system.” 44 Fed.Reg. 67,591. These statements reflect, at best, a refusal to comply with the Guidelines and, at worst, a strong bias against the Tribe and the Tribal judicial system. Such statements have no place in the District Court’s order and were highly inappropriate.
An example of how state law is going to determine how potential Baby Girl cases are decided:
A married couple sought to adopt an Indian child over the objection of the biological father, who wished to maintain visitation rights. The couple and the biological mother appeal the superior court’s denial of the adoption, claiming that the biological father’s consent to the adoption was unnecessary. Under AS 25.23.050(a)(2)(B), the consent of a noncustodial parent is not required for adoption if that parent unjustifiably fails to support the child. But the superior court did not clearly err by concluding that the biological father had justifiable cause for his failure to support the child. We affirm.
See also FN 33.
Side note–it seems (non-Native) father might also be a veteran, given this quick line in the case, “And in the summer of 2008, he took college classes, paid for with student loans and GI Bill benefits.”
Previous AK Supreme Court decision in the case here.
Here, from the state that gave us Rye v. Weasel.
In the present case, the testimony of Ms. C[] indicates that the mother and father abandoned the child, with the mother ceasing all contact with the child after a short period of sporadic visitation following the child’s removal from her custody on May 1, 2012, by emergency contact order, only days after the child’s birth on April 28, 2012. The record further reflects that The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe had communicated to Cabinet officials that it was unable to provide any placement or assistance to the child in this case and thus would not intervene in the termination proceedings.
We agree that in the instant case, the child was not in any way raised in an Indian home or environment and then removed, which is what Congress intended to prevent with the creation of the ICWA. Thus, under the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, which the highest court in this state adopted in Rye, the ICWA is not triggered and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was not appropriate.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Charlotte G. v. Dept. of Child Safety.
An excerpt:
Charlotte G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to B.G. and W.G. (collectively, “the
children”). The children are members of the Gila River Indian Community
(“Tribe”).1 On appeal, Mother does not contest that the statutory grounds
for severance were proven, that there was a substantial likelihood that she
would not be capable in the near future of exercising proper and effective
parental care and control, and that severance of the relationship was in the
best interests of the children. Mother contends, however, that the juvenile
court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to
prove additional elements necessary to terminate a parent-child
relationship under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
Marcia Coyle reported on what happened after the Supreme Court held that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the twins. Here is that article:
Here.
This case was a conditional reversal for ICWA notice violations.
Here.
This case is not an ICWA case (father claimed Tuscarora but neither he nor child were eligible). There’s a lot going on in this case, especially given the medical concerns of the child. However, there are two reasons I post it: the first is the exchange between father and the referee when father wants to wait to have an attorney present– on page 3. The second is the reason the maternal grandmother was denied placement, detailed on page 4.
State court used tribal court termination of parental rights to another child to fulfill a state termination of parental rights. Seems strange there is no mention of ICWA or MIFPA in the case, though it’s possible the father only appealed the reliance the on tribal court termination.
Here is “Justice Department Vows To Fight States That Violate Indian Child Welfare Law.”
An excerpt:
This summer the Justice Department intervened for the first time in its history in a federal district court case in South Dakota, concluding that the state has violated the rights of Native American parents.
Two of the state’s largest tribes argued that the state has removed children in hearings where parents were rarely allowed to speak and often lasted less than 60 seconds. The children were then placed indefinitely in largely white foster homes.
Stephen Pevar, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit along with the Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux tribes, called the hearings “kangaroo courts.”
“There was nothing — nothing — that any of the parents did or could have done,” Pevar said. “It was a predetermined outcome in every one of these cases.”
From the text of his speech:
Today, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice is launching a new initiative to promote compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Under this important effort, we are working to actively identify state-court cases where the United States can file briefs opposing the unnecessary and illegal removal of Indian children from their families and their tribal communities. We are partnering with the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services to make sure that all the tools available to the federal government are used to promote compliance with this important law. And we will join with those departments, and with tribes and Indian child-welfare organizations across the country, to explore training for state judges and agencies; to promote tribes’ authority to make placement decisions affecting tribal children; to gather information about where the Indian Child Welfare Act is being systematically violated; and to take appropriate, targeted action to ensure that the next generation of great tribal leaders can grow up in homes that are not only safe and loving, but also suffused with the proud traditions of Indian cultures. Ultimately, these children – and all those of future generations -represent the single greatest promise of our partnership, because they will reap the benefits of our ongoing work for change. In the last six years, we have worked together in a shared effort to end misunderstanding and mistreatment, and to bring about a triumph of vision over the status quo; of ingenuity over incapacity; and of progress over stagnation. We have laid an enduring foundation as we strive to empower vulnerable individuals, and give them the tools they need not to leave their communities, but to bolster them; not to abandon their ways of life, but to strengthen them.
Of course, there are many more challenges still before us. And we’ve seen all too clearly that the barriers erected over centuries of discrimination will not be surmounted overnight. But we face a brighter future today because we have placed our faith not in conflict or division, but in cooperation and respect; in the understanding that, though we live in different cultures, with different traditions, we share the same values. We believe that sovereign nations have the right to protect their citizens from harm, and that no perpetrator of domestic violence should be granted immunity because of the color of his skin.
We understand that promises of autonomy have meaning, and should not be overturned through the changing desires of different federal Administrations. And we recognize that any child in Indian Country – in Oklahoma, or Montana, or New Mexico – is not fundamentally different from an African-American kid growing up in New York City. And neither child should be forced to choose between their cultural heritage and their well-being.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.