California Court of Appeals — Sixth District

Unpublished California ICWA Case on Customary Adoption in State Court

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

In sum, because the Tribe never identified tribal customary adoption as an option, because the Tribe was involved in the selection of the appropriate permanent plan for the child, and because the record shows that the Tribe was aware of tribal customary adoption at the time of the selection and implementation hearing, the father has failed to show “a reasonable probability that compliance with the procedural requirements of tribal customary adoption would have resulted in an outcome more favorable to him.” (G.C., supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401.)

Calif. Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re C.B.

An excerpt:

We reverse for limited purposes, specifically to allow adequate notice to be provided to the Seneca tribes and to allow the court to determine, under the proper standard, the applicability of the parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights.

California Appellate Court Decides ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re I.W. An excerpt:

As we have mentioned, this case began in 2006 and the section 366 .26 hearing occurred in August 2008. Between those times, mother had provided information about her Indian ancestry to the Department and the Department had sent notices and received negative responses from the Cherokee and Blackfeet tribes. At a hearing about ICWA compliance in December 2008, however, mother revealed for the first time that she had a maternal aunt who was a member of the Choctaw tribe and living in Oklahoma. The Department then sent ICWA-030 notices to the Choctaw tribes in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi and resent notices to the Cherokee and Blackfeet tribes. At a hearing in February 2009, the Department reported to the juvenile court as follows: “Attached to an addendum for today’s hearing are letters from the Blackfeet tribe in Browning, Montana, indicating that the Act does not apply to any of the children; a letter from the Jena band of Choctaw Indians in Jena, Louisiana, indicating that the Act does not apply to any of the children; and three letters from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Boys Club in Cherokee, North Carolina. There is one for each child indicating that the Act does not apply as far as that child is concerned. [¶] Otherwise, attached to the prior addendums and reports are the return receipts for all the tribes that were noticed as well as the letters, tribal responses from other tribes that were previously submitted.”