ICWA – Page 42 – Turtle Talk

Published California Court of Appeals ICWA Notice Case

August 12, 2015Kate Fort

Here. Out of the Second Appellate Division, L.A. County. The State has the ongoing duty to send updated notices when they receive additional information.

The issue presented in this case is whether there is a duty under the ICWA to send updated notices to the relevant tribes when additional information regarding the child‟s ancestors (such as previously omitted birthdates, aliases, and/or alternate spellings) is obtained after the original ICWA notices were sent. We conclude there is such a duty. Because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) in this case failed to send updated notices after it obtained additional information, we reverse the order terminating the parental rights of appellant W. H. (mother) with regard to her daughter, I.B.,2 for the limited purpose of compliance with the ICWA.

Unpublished California ICWA Notice Case and the Passive Voice

July 22, 2015Kate Fort

Opinion here. Court reversed termination and remanded for notice to Navajo Nation.

Classic example of the passive voice here:

The responsibility for compliance with ICWA falls squarely and affirmatively on the court and the Department. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 224.3, subd. (a); In re Antoinette S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1409.)³ Both Robert and the paternal grandmother stated that there was native American heritage in the family. As early as the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the Department to make the necessary inquiries and send the required notices. Thereafter, as everyone acknowledges, the ball was dropped.

Executive Office of the President, OMB Highlights Native Youth Priorities for FY 2017 Budget

July 22, 2015Kate Fort

Document here.

Support the Implementation ofthe Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a federal law that seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families. Congress passed ICW A in 1978 in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies. The intent of Congress under ICWA was to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of lndian tribes and families” (25 U.S.C. § 1902). The implementation of ICW A requires support for tribal and state courts, social workers and foster care. ICWA also calls for services that keep families together. These could be family assistance services, home improvement programs, alternatives to incarceration and employment support services. Agencies should focus on programs that support the capacity building and programmatic support necessary to implement ICWA.

Via GJ.

Active Efforts/Step-Parent Adoption Case out of Washington Court of Appeals

July 9, 2015Kate Fort

Here.

The Court found the active efforts provision applied to the termination of father’s parental rights in a step-parent adoption, despite the father being non-Indian. In addition, the court found active efforts applied despite Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, not only because the facts were different, but also because of the Washington state ICWA statute.

A.D. v. Washburn–ICWA Class Action Suit

July 7, 2015Kate Fort

Complaint here.

Quite the first paragraph:

By honoring the moral imperatives enshrined in our Constitution, this nation has successfully shed much of its history of legally sanctioned discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. We have seen in vivid, shameful detail how separate treatment is inherently unequal. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954). There can be no law under our Constitution that creates and applies pervasive separate and unequal treatment to individuals based on a quantum of blood tracing to a particular race or ethnicity. This country committed itself to that principle when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), and when it abandoned Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

This complaint goes directly at the right of tribes to determine their tribal citizenry. From this paragraph on, the complaint bases everything on the “child’s race” or “Indian ancestry” and their “unequal treatment” under ICWA:

Most Indian tribes have only blood quantum or lineage requirements as prerequisites for membership. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians Const. art. III, § 1; Cherokee Nation Const. art. IV, § 1; Choctaw Nation of Okla. Const. art. II, § 1; Muscogee (Creek) Nation Const. art. III, § 2; Gila River Indian Community Const. art. III, § 1; Navajo Nation Code § 701; Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 80 Fed. Reg. 10146, 10153, B.3 (February 25, 2015) (“New Guidelines”). Consequently, ICWA’s definition of “Indian child” is based solely on the child’s race or ancestry.

The Goldwater Institute’s roll out and website regarding the case. This is highly funded, highly professional media campaign.

Goldwater Institute to File a Class Action Lawsuit Against ICWA

July 6, 2015July 6, 2015Kate Fort7 Comments

This should be a call to arms for Indian country. This is presumably a well funded organization with a litigation, scholarly, and public relations strategy. Indian country lost Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl because the adoption industry won the PR battle before Indian country even noticed. It’s time to act.

From the press release we received. This will become the third ongoing federal lawsuit challenging ICWA:

Goldwater Institute to File Class Action Lawsuit Against Indian Child Welfare Act

Institute launching Equal Protection for Indian Children Project to reform federal and state laws that discriminate against abused and neglected Native American children

Contact: Starlee Coleman, (602) 758-9162

Phoenix—Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 7, the Goldwater Institute will launch a new project to reform the Indian Child Welfare Act and similar state laws that give abused and neglected Native American children fewer rights and protections than other American children. Part of this project will be a class action lawsuit.

“When an abused child is removed from his or her home and placed in foster care or made available for adoption, judges are required to make a decision about where the child will live based on the child’s best interest. Except for Native American children. Courts are bound by federal law to disregard a Native American child’s best interest and place the child in a home with other Native Americans, even if it is not in his or her best interest,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. “We want federal and state laws to be changed to give abused and neglected Native American children the same protections that are given to all other American children: the right to be placed in a safe home based on their best interests, not based on their race.”

On July 7, the Goldwater Institute will file a federal class action lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of core provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The same day, the Institute will release an investigative report that documents how federal law leaves Native American children with fewer protections under the law than all other American children, and the serious consequences that have resulted from this unequal treatment. Recommendations for changes to state and federal law will also be announced.

Two weeks ago both the House and Senate passed the Native American Child Protection Act that for the first time requires prospective adoptive and foster parents to be fingerprinted. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is currently considering turning recent guidelines into formal federal rules that would further entrench the legal discrimination against Native American children.

Clint Bolick, the vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute, litigated a class action in Texas in 1995 that was the impetus behind the federal Multi-ethnic Placement Act, which outlawed delays or denials in foster care or adoption placements on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the child or the adults involved.

Media is invited to watch via live stream a press event that will formally announce the details of the lawsuit, release the investigation, and policy recommendations, and screen an original 8-minute documentary film. The briefing will feature Dr. William B. Allen, the former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

What: Press conference announcing the Equal Protection for Indian Children Project and federal class action lawsuit

When: Tuesday, July 7, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Pacific time

Where: https://www.youtube.com/user/GoldwaterInstitute

Who: Press event will feature Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute; Clint Bolick, the Institute’s vice president of litigation; Mark Flatten, the author of the Institute’s investigative report to be released; Dr. William Allen

Please contact Starlee Coleman at scoleman@goldwaterinstitute or (602) 758-9162 with questions.

###

Op-Ed in The Hill’s Congress Blog on Maine TRC and ICWA

June 25, 2015Kate Fort

Here.

ICWA and its guidelines recognize that indigenous children have a right to maintain their cultural and familial relations, and that tribal governments have a sovereign right to protect their children from wholesale removal. At its core, ICWA is about keeping children with their families and communities, which is why it has been recognized by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and other national child welfare groups as the “gold standard for child welfare policies and practices in the United States.” These aims are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States endorsed in 2010. And the aims are as important today as they were forty years ago when ICWA was passed, given the ongoing issues in Maine, South Dakota, and elsewhere in the United States.

GAL Attempts to Appeal Determination ICWA Applies to Nebraska Supreme Court

June 15, 2015June 15, 2015Kate Fort

Here. Child’s GAL argued Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl meant that ICWA/NICWA should not apply to the case (because mother had tried to create a guardianship with a cousin who lived on the reservation and thus “the case would not result in the dissolution of the Indian family”).

The GAL appealed from an order merely finding that ICWA and NICWA applied to the adjudication proceeding. But the juvenile court took no action implementing or contravening the heightened protections afforded by the acts. Although we are sensitive to the need to expedite juvenile matters, without some dispositive action, we see no impact upon the juvenile’s substantial rights. Consequently, the juvenile court’s order does not constitute a final order within the meaning of § 25-1902. In the absence of a final order, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because these proceedings have already been delayed for an inordinate time, we have expedited the disposition of this appeal

Qualified Expert Witness ICWA Case out of Michigan Court of Appeals

June 15, 2015June 14, 2015Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

In this case, the trial court explicitly recognized that Hillert, the only expert witness at the termination hearing, did not support termination and specifically testified that returning AP andDP to Stenman’s care would not likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to either child. Nonetheless, considering the other evidence presented, the trial court determined that returning AP and DP to Stenman’s care would result in such damage beyond a reasonable doubt. In so doing, the trial court essentially disregarded Hillert’s testimony, contrary to the plain language of 25 USC 1912(f), MCL 712B.15(4), and MCR 3.977(G)(2). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court failed to adhere to the requirements of ICWA and its Michigan counterparts, and remand for further proceedings with respect to AP and DP.

The testimony of a qualified expert witness under ICWA is part of the necessary proof to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that return of the child to her mother will cause serious emotional or physical damage. Without that testimony, the state has not met its burden to terminate parental rights. If the state cannot provide a QEW that agrees with termination, the court cannot terminate parental rights. In situations like this, where the QEW not only testifies that he does not agree with the termination in this case, nor in termination generally as a tribe, this ought to force the state to look to other long term permanency solutions that don’t require the termination of parental rights, like Michigan’s long term juvenile guardianships, or at ways other states have addressed this issue (like California).