ICWA expert witness

Arizona COA Decides ICWA Expert Witness Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Charlotte G. v. Dept. of Child Safety.

An excerpt:

Charlotte G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to B.G. and W.G. (collectively, “the
children”). The children are members of the Gila River Indian Community
(“Tribe”).1 On appeal, Mother does not contest that the statutory grounds
for severance were proven, that there was a substantial likelihood that she
would not be capable in the near future of exercising proper and effective
parental care and control, and that severance of the relationship was in the
best interests of the children. Mother contends, however, that the juvenile
court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to
prove additional elements necessary to terminate a parent-child
relationship under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). For the
following reasons, we affirm.

Wisconsin COA Decides ICWA Expert Witness Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Avery G.:

In re Avery G.

Recent Iowa COA Opinions on ICWA Expert Testimony

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the unpublished opinions in In re D.S. (here and here). Here is a description of these cases from a dedicated reader:

This decision deals with whether Expert Witness Testimony needs to “support” the overall decision of the Trial Court’s decision to terminate parental rights.  In the first decision, the Court of Appeals misunderstood the parents’ arguments on the expert witness testimony issue.  The Court thought they were claiming that no QEW testimony was provided.  On the contrary, the parents felt that there was QEW and that QEW testimony needed to support the Trial Court’s decision.  The parents stated the QEW testimony did not support the Trial Court’s decision, and thus asked for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision.  The second decision essentially states that there is a split on whether QEW testimony just needs to be provided or if the QEW testimony actually needs to support the Trial Court’s decision.  This appellate panel decided that QEW testimony does not need to support the overall decision.

An excerpt from the first:

Continue reading →

Michigan COA Decides ICWA Active Efforts/Expert Witness Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished, per curiam opinion.

Montana Supreme Court Decides ICWA Case (Active Efforts/Expert Witness)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are links to the materials in In re I.B.:

Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Kansas Supreme Court Decides ICWA Expert Witness Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in In re M.F. This court is continuing its good work in requiring trial court compliance with ICWA.

An excerpt:

[W]e affirm the Court of Appeals, concluding that the ICWA heightens the requirements for an expert’s qualifications beyond those normally required in a proceeding governed solely by state statutes. We further hold that Kansas district courts should consider the legislative history of the ICWA and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584 (1979), in determining if a witness meets the heightened standard. In this case, there was no evidence that the two social workers who testified were members of the child’s tribe, had substantial experience in the delivery of child and family services to Indians, had extensive knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and childrearing practices within the child’s tribe, or had substantial education and experience in the area of social work. Thus, the witnesses were not qualified expert witnesses under the ICWA, and there was no expert testimony to support the district court’s decision as required by the ICWA. Because this error is not harmless, we reverse and remand for new proceedings.