Kate Fort on Observing ICWA Cases in State Courts

Our own Kate Fort has posted her paper, “Observing Change: The Indian Child Welfare Act and State Courts,” published in the New York State Bar Association Family Law Review earlier this year. It is available on SSRN.

Here is her abstract:

ICWA is one of the foundational laws of federal Indian law, but it usually arises in the broader public consciousness when there is a voluntary adoption subject to the law. Recently, the law was subject to Supreme Court review in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. A heart-wrenching case, but ICWA is far more regularly applied in abuse and neglect cases. Any involuntary removal of an American Indian child, as defined by the Act, requires the application of ICWA. While cases of voluntary adoptions designed to thwart the requirements of ICWA require constant vigilance from states and tribes, the law provides broader protections for those families in the state child welfare system.

This article posits one way to both collect data about abuse and neglect compliance within the framework of ICWA, and increase that compliance through collaborative change to the systems. QUICWA, a project by the Minneapolis American Indian Center, consists of a group of interested stakeholders who have created a checklist to measure what happens in each individual hearing where the court must apply ICWA. While other groups, such as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, use a different checklist format, the goal of the projects are similar — to find ways to increase compliance with ICWA. Funded in collaboration with Casey Family Programs, law schools and social work programs in key states have started observing ICWA hearings using the QUICWA checklist. In Michigan, the Michigan State University College of Law has observed ICWA hearings in three counties, using law students as observers. Though family law is driven by narrative, collecting data is vital to identify patterns surrounding fairness and due process in the individual stories.

Alaska SCT Applies Adoptive Couple to Affirm Non-Native Adoption

Here is the opinion in Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (Alaska).

An excerpt:

We asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing and oral argument on the effect of the Supreme Court’s Baby Girl decision on the adoption appeal currently before us.26 We now hold that because the United States Supreme Court’s decisions on issues of federal law bind state courts’ consideration of federal law issues — including the Indian Child Welfare Act — the decision in Baby Girl applies directly to the adoptive placement case on remand and to this adoption appeal. We discern no material factual differences between the Baby Girl case and this case, so we are unable to distinguish the holding in Baby Girl. Because the Supreme Court’s holding in Baby Girl is clear and not qualified in any material way, and because it is undisputed that Elise did not “formally [seek] to adopt” Dawn in the superior court, we conclude that, as in Baby Girl, “there simply is no ‘preference’ to apply[,] [as] no alternative party that is eligible to be preferred under § 1915(a) has come forward[,]” and therefore ICWA “§ 1915(a)’s [placement] preferences are inapplicable.”27 We affirm the superior court’s order granting the Smiths’ petition to adopt Dawn and vacate our remand order in Tununak I requiring the superior court to conduct further adoptive placement proceedings. We do not otherwise disturb our decision in Tununak I.

We posted briefs here.

NPR Story on Indian Child Welfare Human Rights Crisis in South Dakota

Here is “Justice Department Supports Native Americans In Child Welfare Case.”

North Carolia COA Decides Matter on Applicability of ICWA

Here is the opinion in In re H.S.:

NC App Opinion

An excerpt:

DSS sent a standard letter of notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and did not receive a response. The juveniles’ guardian ad litem met with respondent father who stated that he was not Native American, and respondent mother who stated that she was part Cherokee. He met with the juveniles’ maternal grandmother who stated that she and her family were associated with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The guardian ad litem gave the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians’ enrollment office the names of the  juveniles’ parents, maternal grandparents, and maternal great grandparents. None of them
were enrolled members.

Federal Court Grants Motion to Seal Evidence re: Judge Davis in Oglala ICWA Class Action

Here are the updated materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

112 DCT Order Granting Motion to Seal

113 OST42(MotionToUnseal)

Related post here.

NARF Press Release on Parks v. Simmonds

Here:

Friday, July 18, 2014

Alaska Supreme Court affirms full faith and credit to tribal court orders in Simmonds v. Parks decision

This morning, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its opinion in Simmonds v. Parks. The Court ruled the Minto Tribal Court’s order terminating Mr. Parks’ parental rights was entitled to full faith and credit and remanded the matter back to the superior court to be dismissed. Today’s decision ends the long-running case and reaffirms the respect owed to tribal courts when deciding issues that concern tribal children.

Background:

In June 2008, the Minto Tribal Court took emergency custody of an infant girl. After numerous hearings in which the parents participated, the Minto Tribal Court terminated the parental rights of the girl’s mother and father, Mr. Parks, and granted permanent custody of the child to the Simmonds who are relatives of the child’s mother. Mr. Parks did not appeal the decision in the Minto Tribal Court, but instead filed a series of lawsuits in federal and state court claiming, among other things, that the tribal court has no jurisdiction over him and that the Minto Tribal Court’s traditional practices and procedures violated his right to due process. Based on these arguments, Mr. Parks claimed that the tribal court termination order was not entitled to full faith and credit under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Simmonds argued that the termination order is entitled to full faith and credit, and they moved to dismiss the state court action, but this motion was denied by the superior court in November 2010.

The Simmonds petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court for review. The petition was granted, and the case was remanded to the superior court for it to make specific factual findings and legal conclusions. The superior court issued findings and concluded in part that tribal courts may not have jurisdiction over nonmembers and also suggested that the Minto Tribal Court’s traditional practices and procedures violated Mr. Parks’s right to due process. The Simmonds filed another petition for review with the Alaska Supreme Court asking that numerous aspects of this decision be reversed.

The State of Alaska intervened in the case and argued vigorously against the Minto Tribal Court’s jurisdiction and the use of the Tribal Court’s traditional law and processes. Attorney General Geraghty himself published an opinion piece on the case. These actions are consistent with the State’s 2004 Renkes Opinion and subsequent lawsuits in which the State has refused to recognize the authority of tribal courts over member children, including State v. Native Village of Tanana, Kaltag Tribal Council v. Jackson, and the ongoing State v. Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

The Alaska Supreme Court’s Decision:

In its opinion today, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that the Minto Tribal Court’s decision is entitled to full faith and credit by Alaska courts. The Court affirmed that the Minto Tribal Court’s judgment on the custody of the child implicates interests that are at the core of tribal sovereignty and self-determination, and the Court rejected the State’s jurisdictional arguments to the contrary. In addition, the Court’s opinion is notable because it adopts the longstanding exhaustion of tribal remedies doctrine, which requires litigants to make use of tribal appellate courts before challenging tribal court decisions in federal or state courts.

NARF Staff Attorney Erin Dougherty described the Court’s analysis of full faith and credit and the tribal exhaustion doctrine as “a direct rebuke of the State of Alaska’s arguments, which sought to treat the decisions of tribal courts differently simply because they are Tribes. These arguments have no foundation in federal law and do a great disservice to the relationships between Tribes and the State of Alaska.” NARF Staff Attorney Natalie Landreth agreed, noting that “the Court’s decision today is entirely consistent with federal and state law.”

In this case, the Native Village of Minto did what it and the 228 other Tribes in Alaska have done since time immemorial—protect and care for their member children in times of need. The Native American Rights Fund calls on Governor Sean Parnell and Attorney General Geraghty to cease the State’s repeated efforts to oppose tribal courts and instead, work with Tribes to better protect all of Alaska’s children.

Alaska SCT Rules that State Courts Must Give Full Faith and Credit to Tribal Courts in ICWA Cases

Here is the opinion in Simmonds v. Parks.

We posted briefs here.

Update in South Dakota ICWA Class Action — Is Judge Davis Concealing Evidence?

Here are new pleadings in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

99 Judge Davis Response

100 Oglala Sioux Tribe Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs possess a document that strongly suggests that Judge Davis is concealing information prejudicial to his case. If Plaintiffs are correct, then the Court will need to determine whether that document and the brief that Plaintiffs are filing under seal should be unsealed, whether any sanctions against Judge Davis are warranted, and whether Judge Davis should be ordered to disclose any other incriminating evidence that he may be concealing. For now, Plaintiffs will respond to Judge Davis’s brief as if the injurious evidence that Plaintiffs have in their possession does not exist and will await the Court’s ruling on that matter.

101 Oglala Sioux Tribe Motion To File Under Seal

OST’s second motion to compel is here.

 

Second Motion to Compel in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

Here:

98 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel

An excerpt:

The only information that Interrogatory No. 11 seeks to discover is whether Judge Davis discussed any 48-hour procedures with other judges on the Seventh Judicial Circuit. It is difficult to imagine an interrogatory more related to Plaintiffs’ burden of proof than Interrogatory No. 11. See Disc. Op. at *6 (“In this case, in order to be successful, plaintiffs must prove the defendants engaged in policies, practices and customs which violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”).

Materials on prior motion to compel is here.

Pro Se Supreme Court Cert Petition Challenging ICWA

Here is the petition in Marcussen v. Sebelius:

Marcussen v Sebelius Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1) Whether the Rooker Feldman doctrine should be overruled for denying all judicial relief by removing the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear any civil action brought against federally mandated statutes enforced in the state courts.

2) Whether Congress has the authority to adopt laws intended to be primarily or exclusively enforced in the state courts.