Download agreement here.
Link to official website and additional documents here.
Link to previous coverage here.
The agreement requires Congressional approval.
Choctaw Nation
Indian Country Statements and Some Law Regarding the California ICWA Case
NICWA’s statement.
Choctaw Nation’s statement.
NCAI’s statement.
California Children’s Law Center statement.
NAJA’s statement.
We will continue to add statements from other groups as we receive them. And, because it’s what we do, we’ve created a page with all of the publicly available primary source documents in this case. You can find that here.
The foster parents’ attorney has issued a statement claiming she will use this case to appeal ICWA up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. We’ve heard this before, and there are very few legal routes left for them to do that, but we still expect they will try them all.
Meanwhile, this case is not just about Indian Country. The role of foster care in this country is clear–to provide a temporary, loving home for a child while her family receives services to so the child can go home safely. It is also provides time for the state to search for other -relative- homes for the child. This is a best practice regardless of whether the child is Native or not. It’s actually state law in California. Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 361.3. In fact, it’s the law in a lot of states. That’s because relative preference in placement is also required by the federal government for states to receive Title IV-E funding. 25 U.S.C. 671(a)(19). Preventing a child from living with her siblings and relatives –family she knows, and who have spent considerable time planning this transition– contrary to court order is not the role of foster parents.
Finally, the use of the media in this case to inflame opinion, spread false information about the situation, publicize a child’s name and face, and to try to dismantle ICWA itself [again] is deplorable. The type of comments that NICWA, the California Children’s Law Center, Choctaw Nation and other individuals are receiving, particularly on social media, should disturb us all. Those taking the brunt of this deserve our full support and thanks.
Additional Resources:
The Michigan Legislature
The Washington Legislature
The Nebraska Legislature
The Minnesota Legislature
The Wisconsin Legislature
The California Legislature
2013 Statement of National Council Juvenile and Family Court Judges
2013 Position Statement of Casey Family Programs
2013 Press Release of the following child welfare organizations in support of ICWA: Casey Family Programs, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Voice for Adoption, Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc., Children and Family Justice Center, Family Defense Center, First Focus Campaign for Children, Foster Care Alumni of America, FosterClub, National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds, National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, National Association of Social Workers, National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, and National Crittenton Foundation.
Federal Court Holds US May Sell Unallotted Timber Resources over Opposition from Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations
Here are the materials in Chickasaw Nation v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Okla.):
254 Tribes Motion for Summary J
Here is the relevant statute authorizing (or mandating) the sale of the resource, as reproduced in the court’s order. Judge for yourself:
That when allotments as provided by this and other Acts of Congress have been made to all members and freedmen of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribes, the residue of lands in each of said nations not reserved or otherwise disposed of shall be sold by the Secretary … under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him and the proceeds of such sales deposited in the United States Treasury to the credit of the respective tribes. . . . The Secretary … is hereby authorized to sell, whenever in his judgment it may be desirable, any of the unallotted land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, which is not principally valuable for mining, agricultural, or timber purposes, in tracts of not exceeding six hundred and forty acres to any one person, for a fair and reasonable price, not less than the present appraised value. . . . Provided further, That agricultural lands shall be sold in tracts of not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one person.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Tribal Membership Claim by Alleged Choctaw Freedman Descendant
Here is the opinion in Greene v. Impson.
An excerpt:
The question in this appeal is whether officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) violated Charles Greene’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him an application form to allow descendants of Choctaw Indian Freedman to apply for federal recognition as an Indian.
Briefs:
Pro Se ICWA Cert Petition Filed with Supreme Court
The case is captioned James L. v. Devin H.
Petition here.
Docket here.
We will post the entire petition once we get it.
Questions presented:
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63 applies, with two express exceptions, “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved”. Despite that fact, many state courts of last resort, and countless state appellate courts in this country have been called upon, year after year, throughout the 35 year history of the Act, to decide a single question of Federal law. That question has involved hundreds of custody disputes to date and a significant number of Indian children each and every year. It is one of the most important questions which this Honorable Court will ever decide regarding the ICWA, and one which all Indian children, families, and tribes have needed a conclusive answer from this Court on for the past 35 years:
(1) Does the Indian Child Welfare Act apply to an involuntary child custody proceeding involving an Indian child, between biological parents and a third party non-parent?
As a separate issue, Petitioner also presents the following question:
(2) Does awarding conservatorship of a child to a third-party non-parent, over the objections of a biological parent and without a finding of parental unfitness, unconstitutionally infringe upon “the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children”?
Arkansas COA Decides ICWA Case — ICWA as Best Practices
Here is the opinion:
Stevens v Ark Dept of Human Services
An excerpt:
Even though the child’s father had not produced the ordered evidence of eligibility for Choctaw membership, the trial court utilized the higher evidentiary standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 to 1963 (2010). The trial court found that DHS had used reasonable and active efforts to rehabilitate Kayla and prevent the dissolution of an Indian family; that DHS had complied with ICWA requirements; and that DHS had demonstrated the likeliness of serious emotional harm if returned to the parent. In addition, the trial court found that J.S. was adoptable and that termination was in her best interest.
Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations SCT Amicus Brief in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Hermann
Cherokee/Choctaw Man’s Suit against Employer for Withholding Federal Taxes Dismissed
Here are the materials in Bey v. UPS (E.D. N.Y.):
Turtle Talk 