Here is the opinion in Diana P. v. State Dept. of Health & Social Services. An excerpt:
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four daughters, all Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). She argues that the trial court erred in finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that placing her children in her custody would likely put the children at risk of serious harm. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
Here.
Footnote 7 discusses the old and new Guidelines with regards to QEWs, though the court relied primarily on the old Guidelines (the professional person who is an expert professional). The specific qualifications of the QEW in this case is discussed at pages 17-20.
Court held no due process violations and that termination was affirmed.
State’s (AG) Response to Tribe’s Pet for Rehearing
Earlier briefs on the rehearing petition are here.
The Alaska executive branch published emergency regulations addressing formal petitions for adoptions in cases involving Indian children: Emergency Regulations 7 AAC 54.600
Here is the draft state bill sent to the Legislature by the Governor: Draft Bill
These emergency regulations allow for a simple request by a relative, tribal member or other Indian family at any court hearing, or a request by the same conveyed to the department by phone, mail, fax, email or in person, or by the request of the child’s tribe on behalf of a relative or tribal member to constitute a proxy for a formal petition for adoption.
In addition, the Governor is holding a press conference on this today (10:30am/2:30pm EDT) :
MEDIA ADVISORY
Contact:
Grace Jang, Press Secretary – (907) 465-3976
Katie Marquette, Deputy Press Secretary – (907) 465-5801
Governor Walker to Hold News Conference Tomorrow
WHO: Governor Bill Walker, Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, DHSS Commissioner Val Davidson and Alaska Federation of Natives President Julie Kitka
WHAT: News conference to discuss Indian Child Welfare Act-related emergency regulations
WHEN: Thursday, April 16, 2015, 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: Governor’s Cabinet Room, Capitol Building, Juneau
TELECONFERENCE NUMBER: (800) 755-6634
LIVESTREAM: gov.alaska.gov/livestream<http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker/multimedia/livestream.html>
###
Here is the opinion in Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State:
Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund v State
An excerpt:
Regulations promulgated by the Alaska Board of Game establish two different systems of subsistence hunting for moose and caribou in Alaska’s Copper Basin region: (1) community hunts for groups following a hunting pattern similar to the one traditionally practiced by members of the Ahtna Tene Nene’ community; and (2) individual hunts.1 A private outdoors group, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, argues that this regulatory framework violates the equal access and equal protection clauses of the Alaska Constitution by establishing a preference for a certain user group. The Fund also argues that the regulations are not authorized by the governing statutes, that they conflict with other regulations, and that notice of important regulatory changes was not properly given to the public. But because we conclude that the Board’s factual findings support a constitutionally valid distinction between patterns of subsistence use, and because the Board’s regulations do not otherwise violate the law, we affirm the superior court’s grant of summary judgment to the State, upholding the statute and the Board regulations against the Fund’s legal challenge.
Briefs:
Here is the opinion in Red Elk v. McBride.
An excerpt:
Two parents disputed the legal custody and visitation rights for their
daughter; the mother resides in Homer and the father resides on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana. The superior court awarded sole legal custody to the mother
because it concluded that the parties could not communicate effectively to co-parent their
daughter. The court ordered unsupervised visitation between the father and the daughter
in Alaska, but prohibited visitation on the reservation until the daughter turned eight. Although the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it decided legal custody,
it failed to fully justify its decision when creating its restrictive visitation schedule and
allocating visitation expenses. Consequently we remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
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.
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 is the opinion in Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Council v. Wheeler. An excerpt:
The superior court awarded Wheeler primary physical custody. Neither Wheeler nor Myre has appealed the superior court’s decision, but the tribal council appeals, arguing that the superior court lacked modification jurisdiction. The narrow question before us in this appeal is thus whether the tribal council has standing to appeal the superior court’s modification decision in light of the parents’ election not to appeal that decision. We conclude that under this circumstance, the tribal council does not have standing, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Here is the opinion in Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (Alaska).
An excerpt:
We asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing and oral argument on the effect of the Supreme Court’s Baby Girl decision on the adoption appeal currently before us.26 We now hold that because the United States Supreme Court’s decisions on issues of federal law bind state courts’ consideration of federal law issues — including the Indian Child Welfare Act — the decision in Baby Girl applies directly to the adoptive placement case on remand and to this adoption appeal. We discern no material factual differences between the Baby Girl case and this case, so we are unable to distinguish the holding in Baby Girl. Because the Supreme Court’s holding in Baby Girl is clear and not qualified in any material way, and because it is undisputed that Elise did not “formally [seek] to adopt” Dawn in the superior court, we conclude that, as in Baby Girl, “there simply is no ‘preference’ to apply[,] [as] no alternative party that is eligible to be preferred under § 1915(a) has come forward[,]” and therefore ICWA “§ 1915(a)’s [placement] preferences are inapplicable.”27 We affirm the superior court’s order granting the Smiths’ petition to adopt Dawn and vacate our remand order in Tununak I requiring the superior court to conduct further adoptive placement proceedings. We do not otherwise disturb our decision in Tununak I.
We posted briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.