Here.
Ultimately the question turned on whether a long term guardianship is a foster care placement or a termination of parental rights (which have differing standards of proof). The court found it was a foster care placement, and required the testimony of a qualified expert witness.
We’ve updated and cleaned up the ICWA Appellate Page. We’ve also added the eight comprehensive state ICWA laws to the page.
A link to the page is now available at the top of Turtle Talk in the menu, and the address is http://www.turtletalk.wordpress.com/icwa
There’s a lot of discussion about what the standards for removal are in an ICWA case at the first (emergency/24/48/72 hour/prelim/shelter care) hearing after a child is removed. This is the question of the Oglala Sioux v. Van Hunnik federal case. The federal regulations state that the standard is the one found in 25 U.S.C. 1922–whether the emergency placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child. 81 Fed. Reg. at 38872.
The Kansas Court of Appeals agrees (In re D.E.J.):
The ICWA is clear that there are two ways to remove Indian children from their homes. The first method allows removal if two factors are satisfied: (1) the State proves that it engaged in active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and the efforts were unsuccessful; and (2) the court makes a determination supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of a qualified expert witness, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. 25 U.S.C. § 1912. Here, the State did not prove active efforts. And the magistrate judge did not use the expert witness’ testimony to support her determination that the children were in need of care. Thus, removal was inappropriate under 25 U.S.C. § 1912.
The second method of removal under the ICWA is emergency removal. Removal is appropriate under this method if the State proves that it is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child. 25 U.S.C. § 1922. While the district court made a finding that the children faced imminent harm at the initial removal, the district court did not find that the children faced imminent harm months later at the adjudication hearing. And the State did not present evidence that the children faced imminent danger at the time of the adjudication hearing. So, removal could not be legally effectuated under 25 U.S.C. § 1922.
***The ICWA is very clear in requiring a finding of imminent physical harm or danger before allowing emergency removal. The ICWA is also clear that the traditional method of removal requires the State to engage in active efforts. The magistrate judge did not find that the State engaged in active efforts or that the children faced imminent physical harm, so she did not make sufficient findings under the ICWA to support continued removal.
(Emphasis in original)
If you don’t use these, I will find out and talk about it in one of my presentations when I’m in your state. Or when I’m in other states. I travel a lot. Print them out and use them PLEASE:
The tribe I worked for decided to “bring the children home” through a focus on children in their community and ensuring resources to support that work. Many strategies were employed, depending on case specifics. Ensuring the tribal children were closer to home, both in proximity and culturally, was the goal. Some cases achieved the goal through reunification with the natural parents, others by placement within kinship care from stranger foster care. One of the primary practices was the transfer of cases to tribal court when the parents were amenable. In the end we brought all but one child back into tribal custody with an over 75 percent kinship placement rate.
This lawsuit challenged the sections of the Oklahoma state ICWA statute (OICWA) concerning notice and intervention of tribes in voluntary proceedings. This case was first filed back in the summer of 2015. On March 31st, the Court agreed with Cherokee Nation’s most recent motion to dismiss as moot. All documents are here.
This means that of the federal lawsuits filed in the summer of 2015, only one currently survives (the sister suit to this one in Minnesota). It also means we have not received an adverse decision in any of them. This is great news, and a testament to the work of the tribal, federal, and state attorneys who had to defend against these suits.
However, it is also true that the Goldwater Institute has inserted itself into a growing number of state ICWA cases, and those cases are multiplying rapidly at the state level. The stated end goal of the Institute–to have ICWA found unconstitutional–remains, and they have not stopped working towards it.
We will be giving case status updates at both NICWA (Matt Newman, NARF) and the Federal Bar conference (Kate Fort) this year.
This is the attempted class action litigation claiming ICWA violated the Constitution.This is a big win for ICWA and the legal advocates who worked on this case at the state, federal, and tribal levels.
Here is the Order.
The legal questions Plaintiffs wish to adjudicate here in advance of injury to themselves will be automatically remediable for anyone actually injured. The very allegations of wrongfulness are that such injuries will arise in state court child custody proceedings, directly in the court processes or in actions taken by state officers under the control and direction of judges in those proceedings. Any true injury to any child or interested adult can be addressed in the state court proceeding itself, based on actual facts before the court, not on hypothetical concerns. If any Plaintiffs encounter future real harm in their own proceedings, the judge in their own case can discern the rules of decision. They do not have standing to have this Court pre-adjudicate for state court judges how to rule on facts that may arise and that may be governed by statutes or guidelines that this Court may think invalid.
Here is the joint press release from the ICWA Defense Project.
Here. The Fourth Appellate District does more research than DPSS (the agency tasked with notice), and put it into the decision:
Respondent argues that there is no federally recognized “Innuit Eskimo” tribe, so notice was not required. It is not quite so simple. The term “Innuit” is a collective term (the plural of Inuk), for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Alaska, Greenland, Canada, and Siberia. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Inuit.) The Alaskan Innuit comprises the Alutiiq, Yup’ik (or Yupiat) and Inupiat tribes. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada-north-american-indigenous-peoples/.) The term “Eskimo,” as it pertains to Alaskan indigenous peoples, has been replaced by “Inuit.” (Ibid.) There are 229 federally recognized Alaskan villages. (http://www.alaskannature.com/inuit.htm; see also, 81 Fed. Reg. 5023-5025, (No. 19, January 29, 2016).) For this reason, one will not find “Eskimo” or “Innuit” in the Federal Register’s list of federally recognized Native Entities.
The Federal Register lists the 229 Alaskan villages. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of approximately 15 Tribal Leaders and BIA Servicing Centers may be found in the BIA Tribal Leaders Directory. (See, http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc002652.pdf.) At the very minimum, the social worker should have provided notice to the Native Alaskan Entities through the BIA, if not to the individual tribal entities.[5]
And, in case you were wondering what that footnote five is all about, it’s worth posting as well:
[5] By way of a letter, DPSS requests that we identify the specific Native American entity to which notice should be provided. We have identified four entities listed in the Federal Register in our opinion, whose names comprise a form of the words “Innuit” or “Inuk.” We also recommended contact with the BIA. However, the duty to identity and locate the appropriate Native American entity is more appropriately borne by the DPSS working with the court.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.