Here, by Pam Palmater. Canada’s numbers of Native children in care may be currently worse than pre-ICWA numbers in the United States (Task Force Four Report).
The increasing number of First Nations children being placed into foster care in Canada is nothing short of a crisis. Although Indigenous children make up only seven per cent of the population in Canada, they represent 48 per cent of all children in foster care. It is an astounding number until one examines these rates on a province-by-province basis. In Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Indigenous children represent a shocking 73 per cent, 85 per cent and 87 per cent of all children in care respectively, according to the most recent Statistics Canada report. However, Manitoba reports that their numbers of Indigenous children in care are increasing and currently stands at 90 per cent, which represents one of the highest rates in the world. This isn’t much of a surprise given that one newborn is taken away from his or her mother every day in Manitoba as a matter of course—the vast majority being Indigenous. They are not the only provinces implicated as Indigenous children in Ontario are 168 per cent more likely to be taken into care than white children.
If you sat in on a class I taught last week, you’d know this is my new favorite article:
Here.
This paper turns attention away from discussions of the race and economic poverty of the families most affected by the system, and instead looks at the impact of the race and privilege of these volunteer child advocates on child welfare decision-making
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) are volunteers appointed by the court in child welfare cases to argue for a child’s best interests. There are many issues with this system, and I have been in many loud arguments about it (some of you have witnessed them). This article identifies many of those concerns and grounds them in the history of state child welfare systems–including how those systems affect Indian children.
As a side note, I know people personally who have worked hard to develop Tribal CASA programs. Those programs are particularly sensitive to ensuring their volunteers understand the culture of the tribe and their children, which counters the issues inherent in state systems. This article is specifically discussing the issue of CASAs in state systems.
Here.
Not an ICWA/Indian child case, but one that is important nonetheless given its ruling ensuring Title IV-E maintenance payments. The lack of these payments sometimes make kinship care very difficult on relative placements–Title IV-E maintenance payments cover, among other things, the child’s food, clothing, and shelter. 42 U.S.C. 675(4)(A). After determining that the aunt/foster parent established a cause of action, the court held that:
The family argues that the Cabinet approved R.O. [child’s aunt] to be a foster parent. Prior to placement, the Cabinet verified that R.O. met relevant non-safety standards by conducting a home evaluation and a background check. After determining that her home was safe, the family court moved the children from another foster provider to her care. R.O. therefore argues that the Cabinet “approved” her as a foster parent for the children.
Kentucky offers several arguments in response. Kentucky distinguishes between “foster care” and “kinship care.” According to Kentucky, “foster care” refers to licensed foster family homes. “Kinship care,” by contrast, refers to relative caregivers. Although the Cabinet must remit maintenance payments to foster parents, the Cabinet need only pay kinship care providers “[t]o the extent funds are available.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 605.120(5) (West 2016). Due to inadequate appropriations, Kentucky ceased funding its kinship care program.
To the extent the Cabinet’s failure to make maintenance payments turns on the distinction between relative and non-relative foster care providers, it plainly violates federal law. In Miller v. Youakim, 440 U.S. 125 (1979), Illinois placed two children with their older sister, Linda Youakim, and her husband. Id. at 130. “The Department investigated the Youakim home and approved it as meeting the licensing standards established for unrelated foster family homes . . . .” Id. Yet, “[d]espite this approval, the State refused to make Foster Care payments on behalf of the children because they were related to Linda Youakim.” Id. The Court reviewed the definition of “foster family home.” Id. at 130–31. After noting that the statute “defines this phrase in sweeping language,” the Court found that “Congress manifestly did not limit the term to encompass only the homes of nonrelated caretakers. Rather, any home that a State approves as meeting its licensing standards falls within the ambit of this definitional provision.” Id. at 135.
UPDATE (2/22/17 10:46AM) Download(PDF) Briefs: Brief of Appellants, Brief of Defendant-Appellee Vickie Yates Brown Glisson, Reply Brief of D.O., A.O. and R.O.
Job Announcement
Staff Attorney – Child Welfare Program
Organization Profile
Nebraska Appleseed is a nonprofit organization that fights for justice and opportunity for all. Appleseed takes a systemic approach to complex issues – such as children’s welfare, immigration policy, affordable health care, and poverty – and takes its work wherever it can do the most good, whether that’s at the courthouse, at the statehouse, or in the community. For more information visit neappleseed.org.
Nebraska Appleseed is an equal opportunity employer; people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with disabilities, individuals with personal experience in the child welfare system, and those from diverse backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply. Nebraska Appleseed does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.
Position Summary
The Staff Attorney will be responsible for working with the Child Welfare Program Director to identify and develop legal and policy solutions to issues impacting Nebraska’s child welfare system. The focus of the work will be on reforming the state’s child welfare system to make sure it supports children and families who need its intervention, and that intervention does not contribute to problems. The Staff Attorney will engage in policy research and analysis, legal research and litigation, and resource development. This position will report to the Child Welfare Program Director, and will work closely with staff attorneys in other programs and the Child Welfare Program Associate. This is a full-time position based in our office in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Responsibilities:
The Staff Attorney will work with the Child Welfare Program Director to carry out the objectives of the program. Specific responsibilities include:
Qualifications:
Salary and Benefits
Competitive nonprofit salary based on experience and benefits including health, vision, dental, 401(k), and vacation.
To Apply
Position is open until filled. Target start date is March 2017. Please send a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and list of three references to Elizabeth Hutchison at ehutchison@neappleseed.org or mail to: Nebraska Appleseed Child Welfare Staff Attorney search, Nebraska Appleseed, 941 “O” Street, Suite 920, Lincoln, NE 68508 by Friday, Jan. 20. If you have any questions or need additional time to submit materials, please contact Elizabeth Hutchison at 402-438-8853, ext. 122.
Just a reminder that this is the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System data, which is information sent from the state to the federal government about kids in foster care. There is still a pending rule change that would add ICWA-specific data elements to these reports, but it has not yet been promulgated. How Native children are identified by state actors for this report varies dramatically by state (and county), but it is the best data we have at this time.
Here.
Here.
Duties
- Providing the entire range of services and technical assistance to Tribes and Tribal organizations regarding child welfare grant programs that include but are not limited to titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.
- Providing advice and consultation to Tribal staff in the development of Tribal plans based on new legislation or Federal policy assuring that the Tribe understands the intent of the Congress, interprets the directives correctly, and covers all pertinent points in its plan.
- Identifying deficiencies in Tribal program operations using audit, program/financial review, and quality control findings.
- Negotiating with Tribal agency staff for mutually acceptable changes.
- Analyzing Tribal grant award requests and expenditure estimates.
Here. Not ICWA-specific, but an interesting article on the wide difference of the states in terminating parental rights.
Across the country, the availability of effective support services is viewed as crucial in helping reduce the need for foster care placements and parental rights terminations, both of which are considered undesirable outcomes for most children.
Professor Martin Guggenheim, a child welfare expert at New York University School of Law, is among those contending that too many parents lose their rights and too many children go into foster care. Parents’ legal prospects vary widely from state to state when it comes to challenging termination, he says; many who are indigent are represented by court-appointed lawyers with heavy caseloads.
Too often, Guggenheim said, terminations produce “legal orphans” — young people who are separated from their parents, then do not receive a successful adoption placement, and eventually age out of the foster care system on their own.
“They’ve lost their family and gained nothing in return,” he said.
Nationwide, according to federal figures, the number of children affected by parental rights terminations declined from 85,525 to 64,398 between 2005 and 2014, mirroring a broader drop in the number of children placed in foster care. Arizona and Texas were among a handful of states bucking the trend, with more terminations and more children in care.
Figures from Arizona show how difficult it is for a parent to block a termination order once it’s requested by child-welfare officials. In a six-month period last year, 2,232 termination petitions were granted and seven were denied.
As a side note, Professor Guggenheim was one of the lead attorneys on the ICWA/Gold Standard Baby Girl amicus brief.
Here.
While not ICWA-specific, the concerns raised in this article regarding representation, admitting at adjudication, and the lack of independent experts are also reasons for ICWA non-compliance.
Parent advocates say Michigan erects a wall between kids and their families because DHHS is the only agency helping parents overcome their struggles and at the same time is their courtroom opponent, logging those struggles as possible evidence against them. In child welfare cases, judges can issue lifelong penalties based on far less evidence than is required in criminal court. Most parents’ only defense is an overworked, underpaid court-appointed attorney.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.