Here:
12-399bsacAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion
ICWA
Tribal Amicus Brief on Constituitionality of Indian Child Welfare Act
NARF/Casey Foundation Blog on Indian Child Welfare Developments
Welcome to ICWA INFO, described as:
In early 2013 Casey Family Programs partnered with the Native American Rights Fund to create an online resource that would focus solely on Indian child welfare issues. Thus, began the ICWA INFO blog. It was envisioned that this site would provide the public with information and timely updates about all things related to Indian child welfare and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This would include:
- news about lawsuits related to ICWA in tribal, state, and federal courts,
- related training and conferences,
- legal analysis and research resources,
- federal and state regulations,
- information about relevant groups and agencies,
- and job postings.
To see our most recent additions and edits, visit our home page. To see past materials, you can use our search box or review materials by category, date posted, or topic from the links at the right.
We hope that you find this resource useful and we invite you to submit materials for this website at the contact page.
Highly recommended.
Michigan COA Decision on In re Morris
The Michigan Court of Appeals heard the ICWA notice case that the Michigan Supreme Court originally remanded back to Wayne County for notice. That case, In re Morris, details what is required of Michigan courts when notifying tribes of a potential ICWA case.
The decision is here. There is finally extensive detail on what DHS did or did not put in the notice to the three Cherokee tribes, something the Supreme Court demanded in Michigan ICWA cases.
Since respondent could not obtain any additional information regarding his relatives, it would be unreasonable to expect petitioner to find it. Imposing this burden on petitioner would also encourage parents, who can best research their own ancestry, to delay the proceedings by providing limited information. Because it would often take a long time to uncover ancestry details, a requirement that ICWA tribal notices include every detail of a child’s ancestry would undermine ICWA ’ s 10-day provision, which prevents unreasonable delays. It would also jeopardize concepts of permanency and finality. The trial court did not err by finding that there was compliance with the ICWA’s notification requirements.
Law Professors Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl & Cherokee Nation Respondents’ Briefs
ACLU Announcement on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik
Here.
An excerpt:
Three Indian parents, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge the continued removal of Indian children in Pennington County, South Dakota from their homes based on insufficient evidence and without proper hearings, in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and the constitutional right to due process.
Congress enacted ICWA to put in place federal safeguards for the removal of Indian children from their homes to both protect the interests of Indian children and give Indian tribes a voice in the process, because of an alarming number of Indian children who were removed from their homes and their tribes. Family separation can be particularly difficult for Indian children because not only are children separated from their parents, but because they are often placed with non-Indian families, they also experience separation from their culture.
When children are removed from their parents based on an allegation of neglect or abuse, a substantive hearing should normally be held in order to determine whether their children should continue to be separated from them. Instead, the lawsuit contends, Pennington County officials hold a cursory hearing in 48 hours that sometimes lasts no more than a minute, where all of the documents are kept a secret from the parents and they are not permitted to introduce any evidence, and their children are then removed for a minimum of 60 days and usually 90 days, according to the complaint. Most parents are also unfairly coerced by the court to “work with” the state Department of Social Services (DSS), which essentially authorizes the department to hold the children for at least two months under whatever terms DSS wants. DSS rarely seeks to assist the family.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit along with the ACLU of South Dakota and Dana Hanna of the Hanna Law Office in Rapid City. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three parents in Pennington County, as well as the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, which are federally recognized Indian tribes with reservations in South Dakota.
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik et al.: Class Action Suit to Force South Dakota Judges to Comply with Indian Child Welfare Act
Here is the complaint, to be filed today:
OST1 Complaint with Exhibits 3 4 6
From the complaint:
Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) in part because officials in South Dakota and other states were removing scores of Indian children from their homes based on insufficient evidence, and in perfunctory and inadequate hearings, in violation of federal law. Yet today, despite the added protections of ICWA, officials in Pennington County, South Dakota are removing scores of Indian children from their homes based on insufficient evidence, and in perfunctory and inadequate hearings, in violation of federal law.
Attached to this complaint as “Exhibit 1” is the transcript of one such Pennington County hearing. This hearing, involving Plaintiff Madonna Pappan, her husband, and their two children, lasted little more than sixty seconds. The court did not permit the Pappans to see the petition that had been filed against them by state officials. When Mr. Pappan asked what he was permitted to discuss, the court changed the subject and, a few seconds later, terminated the hearing. The court immediately entered an order (attached as “Exhibit 2”) which found that “active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs” to the Pappans, and that taking the Pappan children away from their parents “is the least restrictive alternative available,” even though no evidence was introduced during the hearing on those issues. The order stripped the Pappans of custody over their children for at least sixty days and gave that custody to the officials who had filed the secret petition. As discussed below, Plaintiffs Rochelle Walking Eagle and Lisa Young, like many other Indian parents in Pennington County, were treated similarly during their hearings, and their children were removed from their custody. This lawsuit seeks a speedy end to such a disgraceful process.
United States Amicus Brief in Support of Affirmance in the Baby Veronica Case
Here.
Morning Edition Story: Maine and Tribes Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Here.
In Maine, an unusual and historic process is under way to document child welfare practices that once resulted in Indian children being forcibly removed from their homes. Many of the native children were placed with white foster parents. Chiefs from all five of Maine’s tribes, along with Gov. Paul LePage, have created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help heal the wounds.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.