In re M.S.

Three (Unpublished) California ICWA Cases

Kate Fort

One notice opinion involving relationships with the Pala Band of Mission Indians and perhaps a Cahuilla tribe, but of course, the department would have to send notice to determine that.

A second opinion holding the rules requiring CPS to help enroll a child in her tribe (Cherokee) as active efforts are valid

Consistent with this state interest in protecting an Indian child’s interest in tribal membership, rules 5.482 and 5.484 impose an affirmative duty on the juvenile court and the county welfare department to make an active effort to obtain tribal membership for a child when the tribe has notified the county welfare department that the child is eligible. To the extent the rules require CPS to make a reasonable, active attempt to obtain tribal membership for a child, we conclude the rules do not expand or conflict with the state or federal statutory definition of an Indian child. The rules’ requirement that CPS “provide active efforts under rule 5.484(c) to secure tribal membership for the child” (rule 5.482(c)) furthers the objective of ICWA and has no bearing on the ICWA definition of “Indian child.”

***

CPS received four requests to complete an enrollment application, beginning in December 2012, and still had not done so over six months later. The record does not show any reason for CPS not providing the Tribe with a completed, signed enrollment application by the time of the section 366.26 hearing in June 2013.
We therefore conclude CPS failed to comply with rules 5.482(c) and 5.484(c) by not taking reasonable, active steps to secure tribal membership for the children. Such error was not harmless. Active efforts to obtain membership for the children likely would lead to the children becoming Tribe members subject to ICWA protections, and would enable the Tribe to intervene if it so chose.

Finally, a fairly standard ICWA notice case, where even after the following, the parents were asked in court to stipulate that this was not an ICWA case.

In this case, Father provided the name and contact information for his uncle who he believed could provide more information about the children’s grandmother who was alleged to have Cherokee ancestry. There is no evidence in the record the Agency contacted the uncle. Further, the agency did not respond to the repeated requests from the Cherokee Nation for additional information. The Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain any additional family history. Under these circumstances, we find the ICWA notice was inadequate because the Cherokee Nation was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to determine if M.S., E.S., and A.S. were Indian children.

Montana ICWA Case: Notice, Active Efforts and a Look at Adoptive Couple Citations

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

A footnote in the case,

The record does not clarify whether G.S. ever had custody of M.S. The record is silent regarding G.S.’s relationship with M.S. prior to his incarceration. We recognize that 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) does not apply where the “breakup of the Indian family” has long since occurred. In re J.S., 2014 MT 79, P29, 374 Mont. 329, 321 P.3d 103 (citing Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 2552, 2559 (2013)). Although the District Court asked during the April 22, 2013 hearing, before Baby Girl was decided, how the ICWA standard for termination applies in a situation where the child was never in the parent’s custody, the parties did not dispute that ICWA’s active efforts were required. Because this potential issue was not raised, we will not address it in this appeal.

got me looking for other cases that have cited Adoptive Couple. According to Westlaw, that would be 19 cases, including this one. Striking four of them as not child welfare cases, all 15 remaining were involuntary proceedings. Five from California, two from Montana, and one in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia.  Three cases “distinguished” Adoptive Couple, though that included the Alexandria P. case, so distinguishing Adoptive Couple doesn’t necessarily mean the court followed ICWA. Seven of the cases only cited the case (including this one).

Those that used the Adoptive Couple reasoning (instead of citing the case for fairly standard ICWA language)  include:

Native Villiage of Tununak v. State (holding that the adoption preferences of ICWA didn’t apply if the preferred placement didn’t “formally” move to adopt the child);

In re J.S. (applying the “continued custody” reasoning to a guardianship); and

In re Elise W. (discussing whether the case would change notice requirements when a parent never had custody)(unpublished case out of California’s First District).

In re T.S. (discussing when active efforts must start, in light of 1922 and 1912(d))