Here is the order: 2007-06J Case Assignments LAO 2007.
ICWA Cases To Be Assigned to One Judge in Washtenaw County (Judge Connors!)
Here is the order: 2007-06J Case Assignments LAO 2007.
Indian Child Welfare Act
California COA Holds that ICWA Notice to Tribe Not Required Where “Reasonable Probability” is that Child is Not Indian
Here is the opinion in In re Skyler H.:
An excerpt:
While the standard for ICWA notice is low, it is not without reasonable limits. This case raises the issue whether a child’s specific but attenuated Indian heritage invokes ICWA notice requirements under section 224.3, subdivision (b), which describes circumstances that may provide reason to know the child is an Indian child. We hold the trial court has discretion to consider the totality of the information presented concerning the child’s family circumstances to determine whether it meets the threshold required for ICWA notice-“the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2.) We further hold ICWA notice is not required unless the totality of the family’s circumstances indicate there is a low but reasonable probability the child is an Indian child. Here, we conclude the case need not be remanded for ICWA notice because the family’s specific but attenuated Indian heritage does not provide reason to know the child is an Indian child.
South Dakota Supreme Court Dismisses ICWA Appeal by Parents for Failure to Serve Notice on Intervening Tribes
Here is the opinion in In re B.C.
Washington Appellate Court Affirms Termination of Nooksack Parent’s Rights
Here is the opinion in In re LNB-L.
Of note, the court affirmed that the State’s qualified Indian expert witness was qualified, despite the fact that she could not describe the traditional Nooksack family unit, on grounds that the tribe had passed a resolution stating she was qualified.
N.D. Supreme Court Holds that ICWA Doesn’t Apply to “Initial Custody Determination”
Here is the opinion in Schirado v. Foote.
An excerpt:
Second, the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) does not control this case. The ICWA grants tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over “child custody proceeding[s]” involving Indian children. 25 U.S.C.A. § 1911(a). The covered “child custody proceeding[s]” include only foster care placements, terminations of parental rights, preadoptive placements and adoptive placements. 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(1). Despite Foote’s enrollment in the Three Affiliated Tribes and despite her exhaustive references to the ICWA in her brief and at oral arguments, the ICWA is not applicable because this case concerns an initial custody determination; a proceeding outside the purview of the ICWA. See In re DeFender, 435 N.W.2d 717, 721 (S.D. 1989).
Michigan COA Affirms Termination of Parental Rights under ICWA
Here is the unpublished opinion: In the Matter of MPT.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Indian Child Welfare Case to Puyallup Tribal Court
Here is the opinion in In the Matter of M.S.
The court’s syllabus:
The Puyallup Tribe of Indians moved to transfer jurisdiction of a case involving two Puyallup Tribe Indian children to tribal court or, in the alternative, to change placement to a tribal member after the termination of the parental rights of their parents. The trial court denied relief, finding “good cause” for denying transfer existed because of the length of time the State had exercised jurisdiction prior to the Tribe’s motion, the relationships the children had developed and the relevant evidence located in Oklahoma. The Tribe appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. This Court previously granted certiorari.
Indians Court of Appeals Refuses to Apply ICWA to Sitka Father’s Rights Termination
Here is the opinion, obliquely applying the existing Indian family exception, in In re the Adoption of J.C.
Minnesota American Indian Bar Association 2010 Annual CLE — June 17-18 @ Leech Lake
Brochure here (updated): MAIBA Brochure(4)
Keynotes:
Hon. Korey Wahwassuck, Associate Judge of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court
Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Associate Professor of Law & Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law
Other speakers include:
Colette Routel, Assistant Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law
Chris Strandlie, Assistant Cass County Attorney
Frank Bibeau, Legal Director, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Minnesota Supreme Court Assigns ICWA Indigent Counsel Costs to Counties, rather than State
Here are the two opinions and their syllabi: (1) In re S.L.J.
1. Although indigent Indian parents have the right under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(b) (2006), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 611.14 (2008) indigent Indian parents do not have the right under either Minn. Stat. §§ 611.16 or 611.18 (2008), to the appointment of public defenders to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent Indian parents in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. Under Minn. Stat. § 375.1691 (2008), a judicial order compelling the payment of county funds must be paid no later than the first fiscal year after the order is received by the county.
(2) In re J.B.
1. Although indigent parents, guardians, and custodians have the right under Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subds. 3(a) and (b) (2008), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. ch. 611 (2008), indigent parents, guardians, and custodians do not have the right to the appointment of a public defender to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent parents, guardians, and custodians in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. The district court did not err in holding the county in civil contempt for failing to obey the court’s order to pay in full the attorney fees of private counsel appointed to represent the indigent parents in juvenile protection proceedings.
4. Courts’ enforcement of statutory obligations imposed on counties does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.
You must be logged in to post a comment.