Cherokee Nation

Kansas ICWA Case–Ineffective Representation

Kate Fort3 Comments

Here.

Sometimes I’m just left sputtering:

Initially, Dan Arkell-Roca represented Mother. According to the proffered testimony at the district court’s hearing on this matter, Arkell-Roca obtained Mother’s signature on her no-contest statement to the State’s child in need of care petition by folding over the paper in such a way that she could only see the signature line. She was not able to view the rest of the document. Arkell-Roca told Mother that she needed to sign the document if she wanted to get her child back and she did not need to worry about what it said. She signed the statement without reading it and not knowing what it said. Arkell-Roca also advised Mother that she should not pursue the issue of whether there was native parentage of her son because the tribe would come and “take her child away.”

***

The Kansas Supreme Court disbarred Arkell-Roca from the practice of law in Kansas on July 7, 2016. See In re Arkell, 304 Kan. 754, 377 P.3d 414 (2016).

After sending notice to Cherokee Nation and then receiving the request for more information letter back, the state did nothing to find the information requested by the Nation–the grandmother’s birthdate and maiden name despite this:

Here, there is no indication the State knew the grandmother’s birthdate and maiden name, even though the child lived with grandmother after she was approved for placement. The State admits in its brief that it took no action to obtain the information 22 after receiving the Cherokee Nation letter. Thus, we cannot reasonably say that the information was unavailable here. In our view, the letter from the Cherokee Nation can be treated as a request for more information. There were eight question marks in place of the grandmother’s date of birth, indicating this information was needed.

Ultimately,

Finally, unique to this case, we must point out that even if we do not require the State to provide additional information to the tribe, Mother has a strong argument for remand because her attorney, since disbarred, advised her not to pursue a notice to the Nation under the Act.

Yes. Yes, she does.

A Little History on Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court (for Mike Huckabee)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Mike Huckabee invoked Andrew Jackson in encouraging the President to not comply with federal court orders striking the Muslim travel ban, saying “Hoping @POTUS tells Hawaii judge what Andrew Jackson told overreaching court-“I’ll ignore it and let the court enforce their order.”, invoking the aftermath of Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court held that Georgia could not prosecute a white man (Worcester) for setting foot in Cherokee Indian country without its permission.

Like the President, Mr. Huckabee should look into history to see not only how offensive that statement is to both Indian people and to the integrity of United States, but how President Jackson ultimately and completely capitulated to the Supreme Court.

Here is Justice Breyer’s retelling of the incident:

But then North Carolina . . . said, “We will not give the United States customs duties that we owe them because we prefer to keep them. Andrew Jackson woke up to the problem and he ended up saying to the governor of Georgia, You must release Worcester.” They had a negotiation and Worcester was let out of jail.

Stephen G. Breyer, Reflections of a Junior Justice, 54 Drake L. Rev. 7, 9 (2005). In short, once President Jackson realized that South Carolina heard his comment about the Supreme Court enforcing their own orders and were ready to stop paying federal tariffs, he contacted Georgia Governor Lumpkin privately and asked him to release Worcester. He also got Congress to pass a “Force Act,” authorizing him to use the military against South Carolina to enforce those federal tariffs. He effectively capitulated to the Supreme Court in order to save the Union, leaving that mess for future Presidents.

And, finally, here is Chief Justice Marshall’s private mockery of Andrew Jackson after the President had capitulated:

Imitating the Quaker who said the dog he wished to destroy was mad, they said Andrew Jackson had become a Federalist, even an ultra-Federalist. To have said he was ready to break down and trample on every other department of the government would not have injured him, but to say that he was a Federalist–a convert to the opinions of Washington, was a mortal blow under which he is yet staggering.

David Loth, Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Growth of the Republic 368 (1949) (quoting a letter from Chief Justice Marshall to Justice Story). The Chief Justice was near death when he wrote this letter, and months earlier had believed that President Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Court’s order in Worcester was going to be the end of the Court, and perhaps the Constitution, and perhaps the Union. This letter expressed his relief that the Worcester order would be enforced, and his mockery of President Jackson for seemingly turning on his states’ rights ideology.

 

 

Bloomberg Commentary on Cherokee Marriage Equality

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Noah Feldman has published “Cherokees’ Gay-Marriage Law is Traditional.”

Oklahoma Court of Appeals Case Granting Transfer to Tribal Court

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here. And the OK Supreme Court agreed to publish the decision. 

This case involved a guardianship:

ICWA defines “foster care placement” as “‘any action removing an Indian child from its parent or Indian custodian for temporary placement in a foster home or institution or the home of a guardian or conservator where the parent or Indian custodian cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated.'”25 U.S.C. 1903(1)(i). This guardianship case is governed by this definition of foster care placement because Mother cannot have her children returned on demand as shown by the fact that she requested that the guardianship be terminated and her request was denied.

The case also discusses the requirement of clear and convincing evidence to deny transfer. The trial court denied transfer stating it was the advanced stage of the proceedings–which it was because Cherokee Nation didn’t receive notice, and the delay was beyond the Nation’s control.

This is only the 16th time an appellate court reversed the lower court and ordered transfer. This is one of two from this year.

ICWA Placement Preference and Burden of Proof Case Out of Oklahoma Supreme Court

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

The Honorable Wilma Palmer, Special Judge, for the District Court of Tulsa County, ordered the transfer of a minor child S.A.W., from a foster home to a home compliant with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The State, natural father, natural mother, child, and foster mother appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the order of the district court and the Cherokee Nation sought certiorari. We previously granted certiorari. We hold that appellants failed to satisfy their burden that natural father was not a member of his tribe. The Cherokee Nation met its burden to show that the child was subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act. We hold that when a tribe fails to provide timely temporary foster care with an ICWA-compliant home and an ICWA-noncompliant family seeks a permanent placement, the trial court should consider harm to the child resulting from a tribe’s untimely motion to move the child to an ICWA-compliant home. We hold the proper standard for a party showing a need for an ICWA-noncompliant child placement is clear and convincing evidence, and that appellants met this burden. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order directing an ICWA-compliant placement. We hold that the appellants’ additional arguments for challenging application of the ICWA are insufficient and affirm the trial court in part, and remand for additional proceedings.

 

Published California Court of Appeals ICWA Notice Case

Kate Fort

Here. Out of the Second Appellate Division, L.A. County. The State has the ongoing duty to send updated notices when they receive additional information.

The issue presented in this case is whether there is a duty under the ICWA to send updated notices to the relevant tribes when additional information regarding the child‟s ancestors (such as previously omitted birthdates, aliases, and/or alternate spellings) is obtained after the original ICWA notices were sent. We conclude there is such a duty. Because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) in this case failed to send updated notices after it obtained additional information, we reverse the order terminating the parental rights of appellant W. H. (mother) with regard to her daughter, I.B.,2 for the limited purpose of compliance with the ICWA.

Unpublished California Notice Case Cites 2015 BIA Guidelines

Kate Fort3 Comments

Court reversed and remanded for ICWA notice compliance. Opinion here.

The recently updated “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings” (Guidelines) provide that tribes have the sole jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a child is eligible for membership. (Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 10146-02 (Feb. 25, 2015), § B.3(b) & (c), p. 10153.) Tribes that are not notified of dependency proceedings cannot assert their rights under ICWA. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739.) “Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the terms of the Act to conclude . . . that parental inaction could excuse the failure of the juvenile court to ensure that notice under the Act was provided to the Indian tribe named in the proceeding.” (Ibid.) Thus, parents in a dependency proceeding are permitted to raise ICWA notice issues on appeal even where no mention was made of the issue in the juvenile court. (In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1195.) Accordingly, we reject the Agency’s assertion that Mother forfeited any ICWA issue when she failed to object to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding.

Two Unpublished Notice Cases out of California

Kate Fort

Two unpublished cases, both out of the second district.

Here.

Where the court spends considerable time interpreting the California statute regarding generations and ICWA notice. CWS has to notice the federally recognized tribes mentioned (Cherokee, Apache, Oglala).

Here.

Posted for the response CWS gives the Cherokee Nation:

The Cherokee Nation tribe responded, stating it could not verify whether the child had Indian heritage from its tribe. It needed additional information, including, among other things, dates of birth for some ancestors. In bold highlighted letters, it said it needed the middle name of the child’s great-great-great-grand
father [B.W.] and “also his wife’s name.” (We use initials instead of the family members’ full names for confidentiality purposes.)

CWS responded to the tribe’s letter. It said, “Our Department only sends ICWA-030 notices after all avenues of research have been completed, therefore we have already supplied your tribe with as much information as possible. Our notice provided all information known to the family.”

Of course, if you’ve been reading along with the California notice cases, you too know this is often not the case. Regardless, the court found notice sufficient in this case (no way to know if “B.W. even had a middle name.”).

 

Cherokee Nation seeking hunting & fishing compact with OK

Ann Tweedy

Here.

ICWA Placement Preferences Case out of Oklahoma

Kate Fort

A disturbing case that is also a prime example of why ICWA Regulations are needed in addition to the new Guidelines (submit comments by MAY 19!)

Opinion here.

The court reads a best interest determination into the good cause to deviate from placement preferences, and skates alarmingly close to the existing Indian family exception reasoning.