Turtle Talk

Indian Country Statements and Some Law Regarding the California ICWA Case

March 23, 2016March 25, 2016Kate Fort4 Comments

Choctaw Nation’s statement.

California Children’s Law Center statement.

We will continue to add statements from other groups as we receive them. And, because it’s what we do, we’ve created a page with all of the publicly available primary source documents in this case. You can find that here.

The foster parents’ attorney has issued a statement claiming she will use this case to appeal ICWA up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. We’ve heard this before, and there are very few legal routes left for them to do that, but we still expect they will try them all.

Meanwhile, this case is not just about Indian Country. The role of foster care in this country is clear–to provide a temporary, loving home for a child while her family receives services to so the child can go home safely. It is also provides time for the state to search for other -relative- homes for the child. This is a best practice regardless of whether the child is Native or not. It’s actually state law in California. Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 361.3. In fact, it’s the law in a lot of states. That’s because relative preference in placement is also required by the federal government for states to receive Title IV-E funding. 25 U.S.C. 671(a)(19). Preventing a child from living with her siblings and relatives –family she knows, and who have spent considerable time planning this transition– contrary to court order is not the role of foster parents.

Finally, the use of the media in this case to inflame opinion, spread false information about the situation, publicize a child’s name and face, and to try to dismantle ICWA itself [again] is deplorable. The type of comments that NICWA, the California Children’s Law Center, Choctaw Nation and other individuals are receiving, particularly on social media, should disturb us all. Those taking the brunt of this deserve our full support and thanks.

Additional Resources:

The Michigan Legislature

The Washington Legislature

The Nebraska Legislature

The Minnesota Legislature

The Wisconsin Legislature

The California Legislature

2013 Statement of National Council Juvenile and Family Court Judges

2013 Position Statement of Casey Family Programs

2013 Press Release of the following child welfare organizations in support of ICWA: Casey Family Programs, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Voice for Adoption, Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc., Children and Family Justice Center, Family Defense Center, First Focus Campaign for Children, Foster Care Alumni of America, FosterClub, National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds, National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, National Association of Social Workers, National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, and National Crittenton Foundation.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin 3/22/16

March 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 3/22/16.

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2015-2016update.html

Opinions were issued in Sturgeon v. Masica (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act – Regulatory Control; National Park Service) and Nebraska v. Parker (Reservation Lands – Diminishment) on 3/22/16.

Petition for certiorari was denied in Wasatch County, Utah, et al. v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Indian Reservation – Diminishment) on 3/21/16.

US Cert Opposition Brief in Zepeda

March 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Cert Opp Brief

An excerpt:

Petitioner contends (Pet. 11-22) that the Ninth Circuit’s definition of an “Indian” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1153 violates equal protection. Petitioner further asserts (Pet. 22-23) that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with a decision from the Utah Supreme Court. Those claims lack merit. The court of appeals’ decision – which follows this Court’s precedent – is fully consistent with the Constitution, and no conflict exists on the question presented. Moreover, this case would be a poor vehicle to consider the meaning of “Indian” in Section 1153 because petitioner qualifies under any conceivable definition, including the one he proposes. Further review is not warranted.

Cert petition is here.

SCOTUSBlog Profile of Nebraska v. Parker Decision

March 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Matthew Fletcher is First Native Plenary Speaker at National Conference

March 22, 2016March 23, 2016Sarah M Donnelly2 Comments

Here is Matthew with Robert Listenbee, Jr., at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ National Conference on Juvenile Justice in Las Vegas. Listenbee, Administrator of the DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, introduced Matthew and encouraged the group to work harder to bring justice for Native children and youth. Matthew is the first Native plenary speaker that NCJFCJ has had at one of its national conference! His presentation was “The Crisis in American Indian Juvenile Justice.”

SCOTUS Rejects Federal Interpretation of ANILCA in Sturgeon v. Frost

March 22, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The unanimous opinion is here.

Omaha Tribe Prevails in Nebraska v. Parker

March 22, 2016March 22, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unanimous opinion.

Background materials here.

Judge Orders Judicial Notice in Nooksack Disbarrment

March 22, 2016March 23, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Belmont v. Kelly Order Re Resolution 16-28 and Due Process; Granting Motion for Judicial Notice

Excerpt:

Repeatedly, the Court has observed such tactics by Defendants: They rely upon case law where Defendants and their counsel have access to the full record of the case, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without approval by Tribal Council, a majority of whom are Defendants in this lawsuit. They rely upon statutes where Defendants and their counsel have full access to the statutes, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without Tribal Council approval. E.g., after Defendants claimed that the recall option is open to Plaintiffs, the Council declined to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of amended Title 60, setting forth recall procedures. And most recently, Defendants delegated to themselves authority for disciplining advocates in the Tribal Court and then, without providing notice and opportunity to be heard, they disbarred attorneys representing their adversaries in litigation.

Update: News coverage here — “Judge rules ‘biased’ tribal council denied disbarred lawyer due process“

Yurok Office of the Tribal Attorney Job Postings

March 22, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

The Yurok Tribe, located in Klamath, California, seeks applicants for the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel positions. Descriptions are attached.

Yurok Human Resources can be reached at 707-482-1350 or hr@yuroktribe.nsn.us.

0766	General Counsel	Regular Full Time	Klamath	$81,823 to negotiable	Open Until Filled. Review 4/15/16
0767	Deputy General Counsel	Regular Full Time	Klamath	$70,873-$109,560	Open Until Filled. Review 4/15/16