Here is the opinion in In re Avery G.:
Wisconsin COA Decides ICWA Expert Witness Case
Here is the opinion in In re Avery G.:
ICWA
Rare Published California ICWA Notice Case
This case was originally decided on May 22, 2012 as an unpublished decision. Today the court decided to publish the case.
SCAO Training on ICWA Qualified Expert Witnesses
The information is here.
Purpose: This training will help child welfare professionals understand the role of the QEW and will provide practice tips on how to effectively present QEW testimony. This will include testimony on tribal history, tribal perspective on children and childhood, cultural expectations, specific tribal family history, and the unique needs of the Indian child. In addition to improving foundational knowledge on the role of the QEW, the training will also help judges to evaluate the quality of the testimony as well as further aid attorneys in conducting direct and cross examination of the QEW. The morning session will feature a presentation on the role of the QEW in ICWA cases. The afternoon session will offer hands-on exercises demonstrating QEW testimony in an ICWA case.
Target audience: Judges (state and tribal); referees; other court staff; attorneys; DHS caseworkers; other DHS child welfare personnel; and private agency caseworkers.
Memorandum from Judge in ICWA Case out of South Dakota’s Seventh Circuit
We would call this a shocking opinion in case #A12-245 for various reasons, but here is one excerpt:
First, the Tribe does not have a fundamental right to fairness under ICWA, even though the parents and children do. ICWA serves as a procedural prophylactic which permits, or compels, a state court to transfer a child custody proceeding to tribal court so that the tribe may exercise its inherent sovereignty over its tribal members. The Tribe, at its option, could invoke that that jurisdiction and have the case transferred into tribal court. However, it elected not to do so. Consequently, state law prevails in the 48-hour hearing, and Indian parents who appear before the Court are subject to those rules at that stage.
Of course, if ICWA doesn’t apply at the 48 hour hearing, it’s hard to figure out how the Tribe would even know to move to transfer the case.
This is one of those most ICWA hostile opinions we’ve read in a while–especially the parts about proceeding informally, and the endless loop the court creates in not applying ICWA in emergency hearings.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in ICWA Case Involving Washoe Tribe
Here are the briefs so far in Fred v. Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California:
Lower court materials are here.
In re Alvarez, Unpublished Michigan COA Opinion
A strange case with not great language about the non-Indian parent and active efforts.
Michigan SCT Issues Conditional Reversal in ICWA Notice Case
Here is the opinion in In re Budd:
Federal Court Dismisses (For 2d Time) ICWA-Related Claims against County of Alameda Workers et al.
Here is the order in Belinda K. v. County of Alameda (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Belinda K’s Complaint
Here is the first order.
Cal. COA Decides ICWA Notice Case — Information about Great-Great-Ancestors Not Required
Here:
An excerpt:
V.M. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to now four-year-old J.M. and three-year-old B.M. Father is not a party to this appeal. Mother contends that the order must be reversed because the Department of Children and Family Services failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in that: (1) the notices sent did not include the names of maternal great-great-grandparents, alleged by the maternal grandmother to have Papago Indian heritage; and (2) J.M. was not included in the notices. We disagree, finding the law does not require the inclusion of information about great-great-ancestors in ICWA notices, and any error in failing to include J.M. was harmless. We therefore affirm.
In re Al-Sadoon, Unpublished Michigan COA ICWA Case
Here.
Problematic language here:
The lower court did not inquire about the tribal status of respondent or the children as required by MCR 3.965(B)(2). However, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that it “will not reverse an otherwise proper termination absent a showing that a party suffered an actual deprivation of an important right.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369 n 10; 589 NW2d 763 (1999). Respondent has not shown that the lower court’s failure to inquire about tribal status in fact deprived her of an important right. Accordingly, any error in the lower court’s failure to inquire about tribal status was harmless.
Problematic for many reasons, but mainly because the Michigan Supreme Court found in May:
Therefore, before a state court can determine whether ICWA applies to the proceedings, the court must first make the critical determination whether the child is an “Indian child.”
In re Morris, *13
1. At the preliminary hearing, the court must inquire about Indian heritage. While MCR 3.965(B)(2) frames the inquiry in terms of actual tribal membership, sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which membership might be based is adequate to trigger the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a). See part IV(A) of the opinion. As we have noted, not all tribes keep written rolls and it is possible for a parent to be unaware that she or he is a member of a tribe. See n 19 of the opinion and accompanying text.
In re Morris, Appendix (emphasis added).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.