Here are the available materials in McCrary v. Ivanof Bay Village:
McCrary Initial Brief [UPDATED 5/2/12]
Alaska Supreme Court
State Supreme Court Outcomes: Alaska
Well, we’ve looked at Montana (70 percent win rate for tribal interests) and North Dakota (38 percent), both states with no intermediate appellate court.
And now we look at Alaska.
Tribal interests prevail in about 46 percent of cases.
Here are the cases we counted:
Alaska Supreme Court Recognizes Inherent Authority of Native Village of Tanana’s Tribal Court in ICWA Matters
Here is the opinion in Alaska v. Native Village of Tanana.
And the materials:
Alaska Supreme Court Reverses Trial Court Determination that ICWA Does Not Apply
Here is the opinion in Bruce L. v. W.E.
An excerpt:
A biological father appeals from the termination of his parental rights and an adoption decree, arguing it was error for the trial court to (1) fail to apply certain protections available to him under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and (2) find his consent to the adoption unnecessary under state law. We vacate the trial court’s determination that the child is not an Indian child under ICWA because it is not explained in the court’s written decision why, after the parties to the proceeding took the position that the child is an Indian child and that this was an ICWA adoption, the trial court sua sponte found and relied on a proof deficiency without giving the father notice and opportunity to address it. We also reverse the trial court’s determinations that (1) the father’s efforts to obtain custody through the courts were not justifiable cause for his failure to meaningfully communicate with the child during the first year of the child’s life, and (2) the evidence in the record of the father’s indigence did not meet his burden of production regarding justifiable cause for his failure to support the child during that year. We therefore vacate the termination of the father’s parental rights and the adoption decree and remand for further proceedings on the child’s status as an Indian child, possible ICWA protections available to the father, and whether the father unjustifiably failed to support the child during the first year of the child’s life.
Alaska Supreme Court Decides ICWA Active Efforts Case
Alaska Native Medical Center Dentist Faces Non-Compete Clause Suit
Here is the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision in Wenzell v. Ingram. An excerpt:
Dominic Wenzell purchased a private dental clinic in Anchorage from Guy Ingrim. The purchase agreement included a “Covenant Not to Compete” prohibiting Ingrim from the “practice of dentistry” within fifteen miles of his old clinic for two years and within ten miles for an additional three years. One year after the sale, Ingrim began employment as a dentist at the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC), two miles away from the clinic. Wenzell sued in superior court for breach of the covenant not to compete. The superior court found as a matter of law that Ingrim’s employment at ANMC did not constitute the “practice of dentistry” and granted summary judgment in Ingrim’s favor, dismissing the lawsuit. Although we conclude that Ingrim’s employment at ANMC does constitute the “practice of dentistry” and vacate the superior court’s grant of summary judgment, we remand the case to the superior court to determine whether Ingrim’s employment at ANMC violates the covenant not to compete.
Alaska Supreme Court Decides ICWA Case
Here is the opinion in Jon S. v. State of Alaska, Dept. of Health and Social Services. An excerpt:
A father challenges a superior court order finding his daughter, an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), to be a child in need of aid and terminating his parental rights. We conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the superior court’s findings that: (1) the daughter was a child in need of aid; (2) the father failed to remedy the conduct or conditions placing her at harm; (3) the state met its active efforts burden; (4) returning the daughter to the father would beyond a reasonable doubt be likely to cause her serious emotional harm; and (5) termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child. We therefore affirm.
And here is the court’s conclusion in relation to the ICWA “active efforts” requirement:
We analyze the state’s active efforts based on its “overall handling of the case,” including efforts by Jon’s parole officers. Because the record and testimony show that OCS and Jon’s parole officers made active efforts throughout 2005 and 2006, actively continued trying to locate Jon between October 2006 and April 2007, provided visitation with Melissa once Jon was located again, and actively pursued placement with Jon’s family from October 2006 through November 2007, we hold that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that the state made active efforts.
Alaska Supreme Court Decision on Indian Custodianships
Here is the opinion in Ted W. v. State of Alaska. An excerpt:
This appeal arises from the superior court’s decision to allow a mother to revoke the Indian custodian status for her child’s father, whose own parental rights to the child had already been terminated. The father’s status as the child’s Indian custodian under the Indian Child Welfare Act was based solely on the mother’s temporary transfer of physical care and custody of the child to the father after termination of his parental rights. After the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) removed the child from the father and became the child’s temporary legal custodian, the mother joined in OCS’s motion to terminate the father’s status as the child’s Indian custodian. The superior court correctly reasoned that because the Indian custodianship was created solely by the mother’s temporary placement of the child with the father, that custodianship could be revoked by the mother who acted in concert with OCS as the child’s legal custodian. We therefore affirm the superior court’s decision.
Alaska Supreme Court Decides ICWA Case
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights of a parent from the Native Village of Barrow. Here is the opinion in Marcia V. v. State of Alaska.
Eric Davis (Mich. Law Student) on ICWA
Eric Davis, an Indian law student at Michigan, published “In Defense of the Indian Child Welfare Act in Aggravated Circumstances” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law (13 Mich. J. Race & L 433). From the abstract:
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) affords various protections to Indian families throughout child welfare proceedings. Among them is the duty imposed upon the state to provide rehabilitative services to families prior to the outplacement of an Indian child, or termination of parental rights. An analogous provision for non-Indians in the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) excuses rehabilitative services in “aggravated circumstances” of child abuse. The ICWA contains no such exception, and that absence has been controversial.
In 2002, the Alaska Supreme Court applied ASFA’s aggravated circumstances exception to the ICWA, thereby excusing services when a father severely abused his three Native children. In 2005, the South Dakota Supreme Court addressed the same issue, but expressly refused to engraft such an exception into the ICWA. This Note defends South Dakota’s position on policy grounds. It chiefly argues that an aggravated circumstances exception would do violence to the ICWA and its family preservation goals, and further that such an exception is unnecessary to protect Native children from dangerous parents.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.