ICWA notice requirements

Iowa Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re L.B.-A.D.

An excerpt:

Under the circumstances presented, we find the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Additionally, we find no error in the juvenile court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. However, because we determine the court erred in failing to give proper notice to the tribes in which the children could be determined to be “Indian children,” we remand the matter to the juvenile court, which shall give notice of the termination proceedings to the appropriate Indian tribes. See R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d at 150. If the tribes fail to respond within the appropriate timeframe or reply and determine the children are not eligible for tribal membership, the juvenile court’s original order of termination will stand. If a tribe responds and intervenes, reversal of the termination and further proceedings consistent with the requirements of the Iowa ICWA will be necessary. We therefore affirm the juvenile court‟s termination ruling on this condition. We do not retain jurisdiction.

California Appellate Court Decides ICWA Notice Case — Parents Cannot Waive ICWA Inquiry Requirements

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting, since the parents were the ones who failed to bring it up first.

Here’s the opinion — In re Noreen G.

California Court of Appeals Publishes ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is In re Jeremiah G. An excerpt:

We publish this opinion to emphasize, again, what we thought that our court made clear in In re O.K. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 152. In a juvenile dependency proceeding, a claim that a parent, and thus the child, “may” have Native American heritage is insufficient to trigger ICWA notice requirements if the claim is not accompanied by other information that would reasonably suggest the minor has Indian ancestry. Here, the assertion that there was a “possibility” the great-grandfather of the minor’s father “was Indian,” without more, was too vague and speculative to require ICWA notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ( Id. at p. 157.) This is particularly so in this case because the minor’s father, who made the assertion, later retracted it, telling the juvenile court that he “didn’t actually have [Indian ancestry].” Thus, mother’s appellate claim of ICWA error lacks merit.