Michigan Indian

Here. An excerpt:

A new year has begun, and with it comes a crop of intriguing new books. From the first indigenous science fiction anthology, to studies of American Indian history, to a memoir or two, here is a sampling of what’s in store for the first few months of 2012.

Readers interested in the law awoke to a new find on January 1: erstwhile attorney and Turtle Talk blogger Matthew L.M. Fletcher’s The Eagle Returns: The Legal History of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan State University Press). It may sound a tad scholarly for a post-holiday-torpor read, but the book itself covers beginnings, as it recounts the struggle of a group bound by kinship, geography and language to become self-governing again. It’s a handy reference for people who need to know more about how the Grand Traverse Band held its own to preserve its culture, language and other existential cornerstones in the face of legal and other intangible attempts to eradicate same.

Gun Lake Gaming CEO John Shagonaby to Speak at WMU

January 13, 2012January 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the details.

Second ICWA-Related Argument at Michigan SCT on Wednesday

January 9, 2012February 26, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the issue in In re Gordon:

Courtney Hinkle first came to the attention of Children’s Protective Services after she was suspected of neglecting her months-old infant. When the child was one year old, CPS learned that he had been treated for second-degree burns to his hands, allegedly caused by a fall into a fireplace, and that Hinkle had not obtained follow-up medical care for him as directed. CPS filed a court action, and the child was taken into protective custody and placed in foster care. After attempting to provide services for Hinkle and concluding that she did not benefit from them, the Department of Human Services filed a petition seeking termination of Hinkle’s parental rights. At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the circuit judge found that DHS had established grounds for termination, and that termination was in the child’s best interests.

Hinkle appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that DHS and the circuit court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901 et seq., and failed to create a complete record of their attempts at compliance. Under the ICWA, child custody proceedings involving foster care placement or termination of parental rights to an “Indian child,” 25 USC 1903(4), are subject to specific federal procedures and standards. ICWA requires that an interested Indian tribe receive notice of termination proceedings involving an Indian child, 25 USC 1912(a). Under the ICWA, an “Indian child” is any unmarried individual less than eighteen years of age who is either (1) an Indian tribe member or (2) both eligible for Indian tribe membership and an Indian tribe member’s biological child. 25 USC 1903(4). The question whether a person is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership is for the tribe itself to answer. In re NEGP, 245 Mich App 126, 133 (2001). The failure to comply with the Indian tribe notice requirements may lead to invalidation of the proceedings. 25 USC 1914.

The circuit court record disclosed that Hinkle informed the judge that her family was part of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe in Mt. Pleasant. Hinkle stated that she and her child were not tribal members, and that her biological mother was not a member of the tribe, but that her mother’s siblings were, including the aunt who was caring for her son during his foster care placement. She stated that she and her mother were awaiting word as to their own eligibility for tribal membership. The circuit judge directed DHS to investigate the child’s possible tribal membership and to notify the tribe of the proceedings. At a later hearing, the caseworker stated that she mailed a certified letter to the tribe, but had not heard back as to the child’s membership. At a subsequent hearing, the caseworker informed the court that Hinkle’s mother had been told that the family was not eligible for tribal “benefits.” The foster mother stated that she was a tribal mother, and that she tried to obtain information regarding the child’s status from the tribe, but that the tribe refused to release that information to anyone but DHS or the court. The court directed the caseworker to contact the tribe again. The ICWA notice issue was not mentioned again at any hearing and the file contains no mention of any further communications with the tribe.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of Hinkle’s parental rights in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Hinkle did not demonstrate that the trial court and DHS failed to satisfy ICWA’s notice requirement, the Court of Appeals stated; there was ample evidence that the tribe had actual notice of the proceedings, the appellate court said. Moreover, “[g]iven respondent’s own statement in court that she received a response that she and her son were not eligible for tribal membership, the trial court was relieved from embarking on further ICWA tribal notification efforts,” the Court of Appeals concluded. Hinkle appeals.

And here are the briefs:

Petitioner-Appellee’s Response to Application for Leave to Appeal>>

Respondent-Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal
Respondent-Appellant’s Supplemental Brief>>

Michigan Indian Legal Services, Inc. and The American Indian Law Section of the State Bar of Michigans’ Amici Curiae Brief>>

Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in ICWA Conditional Affirmance Case Wednesday

January 9, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The case is In re Morris. The issue is:

Natasha Lynn Brumley and David Lenin Morris challenge the termination of their parental rights to their daughter, who was removed from Brumley’s custody after the child tested positive for cocaine at birth. During a preliminary hearing in family court, both parents indicated that they were of Cherokee descent. The family court ordered the parents to comply with a parent-agency agreement, and the Department of Human Services provided various services to Brumley and Morris, including substance abuse rehabilitation programs for Brumley and parenting classes for both of them. But the family court ultimately terminated their parental rights, finding in part that neither Brumley nor Morris benefitted from the services offered to them.

The parents appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Because the Court of Appeals did not initially address the Department of Human Services’ confession of error regarding its failure to give notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC 1912(a), the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address that issue. Under the ICWA, 25 USC 1901 et seq., child custody proceedings involving foster care placement or termination of parental rights to an “Indian child,” 25 USC 1903(4), are subject to specific federal procedures and standards. ICWA requires that an interested Indian tribe receive notice of termination proceedings involving an Indian child: “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention. . . . No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the Secretary . . . .” [25 USC 1912(a).] Under the ICWA, an “Indian child” is any unmarried individual less than 18 years of age who is either (1) an Indian tribe member or (2) both eligible for Indian tribe membership and an Indian tribe member’s biological child. 25 USC 1903(4). The question whether a person is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership is for the tribe itself to answer. In re NEGP, 245 Mich App 126, 133 (2001). The failure to comply with the Indian tribe notice requirements may lead to invalidation of the proceedings. 25 USC 1914.

On remand, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the Department of Human Services’ statement that it failed to comply with the ICWA’s notice requirements. The appellate panel conditionally affirmed the circuit court’s termination ruling, but remanded the case to the circuit court so that it could comply with the notice requirements of the ICWA. Morris appeals.

Here are the briefs:

Petitioner-Appellee’s Brief on Appeal>>
Petitioner-Appellee Lawyer Guardian Ad-Litem’s Brief on Appeal>>

Respondent-Appellant’s Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellant’s Reply Brief>>

American Indian Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan’s Amicus Curiae Brief>>

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians’ Amicus Curiae Brief>>

Federal Court Dismisses Saginaw Chippewa NLRB Challenge

December 27, 2011December 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

DCT Order Dismissing SCIT Complaint

Briefs and other materials are here and here and here and here.

KBIC Proposed Gaming Facility in Marquette County Approved by Department of Interior; Cayuga Request Dismissed

December 20, 2011December 20, 2011Kate Fort

From the press release (though the embedded links with additional information aren’t yet working):

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is located in Baraga County, Mich., and has approximately 3,310 members. It has more than 6,000 acres of existing trust lands on its reservation in the state’s Upper Peninsula. The tribe has been operating and regulating a class III gaming facility in Marquette County, about 90 miles from its headquarters, since at least 2000. The tribe is proposing to relocate this existing facility to a new location within Marquette County, on an 80-acre parcel at the site of the former Marquette County Airport. The new site is 18 miles closer to the tribe’s reservation than its existing facility. Under a 2000 settlement agreement with the state of Michigan, the tribe has agreed to close its existing off-reservation gaming facility if its proposal receives final approval and it begins gaming activities on the new site.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) prohibits Indian gaming on lands acquired in trust after the law’s enactment in 1988, unless one of three explicitly crafted exceptions applies. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community submitted its application under IGRA’s “Secretarial Determination” exception, which requires the Secretary to determine the proposed gaming establishment is in the best interest of the tribe and its citizens, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. The governor of Michigan must concur in this determination before the land can be acquired in trust for the tribe for gaming.

Interior also dismissed an application by the Cayuga Indian Nation, stating it was incomplete. Here is press coverage of that decision. Senator Schumer’s quote is particularly disheartening:

Schumer acknowledged that the battle over the Cayuga application could continue if the Cayugas submit a new application.

“I fought tooth and nail to have the Interior Department block this application, and am pleased that the federal government has heeded our call,” he said. “I’ll continue to stand side-by-side with homeowners, businesses, and county government leaders to oppose further attempts to take land into trust without the consent of Seneca and Cayuga counties.”

The Cayugas started the trust application process in 2005. The 125 acres it sought to place into federal trust includes part of the nation’s ancestral homeland around the north end of Cayuga Lake.

Documents are also available here

Update in Saginaw Chippewa Suit against NLRB

December 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Much like the 2009 letter from the Interior Solicitor’s Office in relation to the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, a new letter from the Interior Solicitor makes the same argument — that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to Indian tribes — in relation to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Here is the new letter (signed by Patrice Kunesh, Deputy Solicitor, Indian Affairs):

NLRB 12 7 11