Here is the opinion in Belinda K. v. Baldovinos (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Denying Belinda K’s Motion
Indian Child Welfare Act
Nevada SCT Holds that Tribal-State Agreement Can Trump ICWA Exclusive Tribal Jurisdiction Provision
Here is that opinion:
An excerpt:
This appeal requires us to decide whether, under section 1919 of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (2006), a tribal-state agreement respecting child custody proceedings may vest a Nevada district court with subject matter jurisdiction to take a relinquishment of parental rights under circumstances where section 1911(a) of the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a), would otherwise lay exclusive jurisdiction with the tribal court. We conclude that the ICWA, in keeping with fundamental principles of tribal autonomy, allows for tribal-state agreements for concurrent jurisdiction even when the tribe would have exclusive jurisdiction absent an agreement. Therefore, we affirm.
The tribal-state agreement the court relies on is an agreement for this case alone, which arose from what appears to be a great example of tribal-state court cooperation. The state court involved the tribe prior to the children being eligible for membership, and thus prior to ICWA applying. When the children became eligible (based on a change in the tribe’s membership rules), the court began applying ICWA. After termination of parental rights, the state court transferred the case to tribal court for adoption proceedings. The children were not placed with their foster family, which is what led to the mother bringing the case. While it’s possible this case could be used to hurt tribal jurisdiction, from the outside at least, it appears to be a case of cooperation that benefited both the children and the tribe.
Article: Vision from the Bench to Fulfill ICWA Promise
Vision from the Bench to Fulfill the ICWA Promise (1)
1/18/12 •
It has been 33 years since the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed, and it is important to take the time to evaluate the impact on the child welfare system since that time.
Alaska SCT Decides ICWA Active Efforts Case
Here is the opinion.
Cheyanna Jaffke on the Existing Indian Family Exception in the Age of Obama
Cheyanna Jaffke has posted her paper, “Judicial Indifference: How Does the ‘Existing Indian Family’ Exception to the Indian Child Welfare Act Continue to Endure in the Age of Obama?”on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Even though Congress created the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) over thirty years ago to preserve the relationship between tribes and their members, courts created, and some continue to use, the “existing Indian family” exception to avoid application of the ICWA to children and/or parents that the courts do not believe are Indian-enough for the ICWA. The continued use of the “existing Indian family” exception shows that there is either judicial laziness, indifference, or intolerance fueling the application of the “existing Indian family” exception and blemishes those states that choose to continue to apply it.
This article first discusses the need for the ICWA after a long period between the 1800s and the 1970s wherein United States policy was to attempt to assimilate American Indian children by removing 25-35% of all American Indian children from their American Indian homes and tribes and place them with non-American Indian families.
Next, the article sets forth the pertinent provisions and application of the ICWA and argues that the ICWA is still necessary because courts are seeking to remove American Indian children from their homes and place them with non-American Indian families.
The article next sets forth the “existing Indian family” exception, phoenix-like birth, death, and subsequent resurrection into United States law.
This article discusses the need to reject the “existing Indian family” exception because it ignores the plain language of the ICWA, perpetuates stereotypes and the assimilation of American Indians, ignores tribal interests, and provides inconsistency in the application of the ICWA.
US Officials Announce Meeting on South Dakota Indian Foster Care
Here.
Utah Appellate Court Decides ICWA Case
Here is the as-yet unpublished opinion in In re M.J.
An excerpt:
A.J. and J.J. (Mother and Father, respectively) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights in M.J. and S.J. (the Children). On appeal, Mother and Father argue that the juvenile court erred in determining that it did not have “reason to know” that the Children were Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1901–63 (2006), and that ICWA, therefore, did not apply in this case; that the evidence was insufficient to justify termination of their parental rights; and that the juvenile court committed plain error by failing to follow the proper procedure when ordering the Children to be removed. We affirm.
News Coverage of Minn. SCT Decision in In re R.S.
Here, via the North Dakota Supreme Court website (and the Grand Forks Herald).
NPR: Part 3 of ICWA Series — “Native Survivors of Foster Care Return Home”
Here. Excellent reporting.
NPR: Part 2 of ICWA Series–“Tribes Question Foster Group’s Power and Influence”
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.