From SCOTUSBlog:
Title: Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council
Docket: 09-960
Issue: Whether the hundreds of Indian tribes throughout the State of Alaska have authority to initiate and adjudicate child custody proceedings involving a [member] and then to compel the State to give full faith and credit to the decrees entered in those proceedings.
Here is the opinion in In re M.B.
An excerpt:
Subsequently, the court conducted a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26.) At the hearing, the juvenile court applied the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires the expert opinion of an Indian expert that continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian would result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Both appeal the judgment. Father argues the judgment must be reversed because the Indian expert did not conduct an adequate investigation. Mother joins this challenge. We affirm.
From Indianz. The comments of Sen. Bill Wielechowsk read like a cert pool memo (and agreeably so):
“The facts in Kaltag are this,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D), The Anchorage Daily News reported. “You had a Mom who was convicted of murder and was a drinker. You had a Dad who wanted nothing to do with the child. You had the Kaltag tribe that took custody of the child, adopted her to residents who lived in Huslia. All participants consented to the tribal court doing this, all were Native, no one raised any concerns about the due process provided by the tribal court. The child is 10 years old, happy and healthy with the family, and the state comes in and wants to stop this.”
Here:
State Court Administrative Office – Court Improvement Program: Indian Child Welfare Act Forum Remarks, October 6, 2008
by Justice Michael F. Cavanagh
Indian Children and Termination of Parental Rights: Michigan Supreme Court Takes a Step in the Right Direction in In Re Lee
by Angel Sorrells, Cami Fraser, Thomas Myers, and Aaron Allen
Proceed with Prudence: Advising Clients Doing Business in Indian Country
by R. Lance Boldrey and Jason Hanselman
Indian Gaming and Tribal Self-Determination: Reconsidering the 1993 Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
by Zeke Fletcher
Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements
by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Kathryn E. Fort, and Wenona T. Singel
And I completely missed this article in the same issue (many apologies to the authors!):
In the Law: Keeping Current with American Indian Legal Resources
by Jan Bissett and Margi Heinen
Here is the opinion in In re M.F. This court is continuing its good work in requiring trial court compliance with ICWA.
An excerpt:
[W]e affirm the Court of Appeals, concluding that the ICWA heightens the requirements for an expert’s qualifications beyond those normally required in a proceeding governed solely by state statutes. We further hold that Kansas district courts should consider the legislative history of the ICWA and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584 (1979), in determining if a witness meets the heightened standard. In this case, there was no evidence that the two social workers who testified were members of the child’s tribe, had substantial experience in the delivery of child and family services to Indians, had extensive knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and childrearing practices within the child’s tribe, or had substantial education and experience in the area of social work. Thus, the witnesses were not qualified expert witnesses under the ICWA, and there was no expert testimony to support the district court’s decision as required by the ICWA. Because this error is not harmless, we reverse and remand for new proceedings.
Here is the order.
An important day for Michigan Indian people. Congrats to Bill Brooks and the rest of the American Indian Law Standing Committee.
Here is the opinion in In re Miller.
An excerpt:
Respondent was a member of an Indian tribe, and before termination of her parental rights could be ordered, the court was required to find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody of the child by respondent was likely to result in serious emotional or physical harm to the child under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC 1912(f). Expert testimony was presented that respondent’s conduct violated the norms and customs of the Chippewa Tribe and that continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional harm to the child. Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the best interest of the child.
This Wednesday at 9:30 AM, the Michigan Supreme Court will consider changes to the Michigan Court Rule that will “incorporate specific provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act into the relevant rules that relate to adoptions, guardianships, child protective proceedings, and juvenile status offenses.” The proposed changes are here.
Comments on the proposed changes are here:
* Supplemental Comments (01/25/10)
Honorable Dorene S. Allen, Midland County Probate Court (01/12/10)
Disproportionate Minority Contact of American Indians/Alaska Natives in the Child Welfare System of Michigan: Understanding the Law and Respecting Cultural Differences
by Margaret Olesnavage, Maribeth D. Preston, Angel D. Sorrells, and Stacey M. Tadgerson
Ms. Sorrells is a true leader on increasing compliance and awareness of the Indian Child Welfare Act in Michigan, and Ms. Tadgerson is the director of Native American Affairs in the Michigan DHS.
Barbara Atwood, a prominent commentator on the Indian Child Welfare Act, soon will be publishing her book, “Children, Tribes, and States: Adoption and Custody Conflicts over American Indian Children” with Carolina Academic Press. She has posted the first chapter of the book on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This Introduction to Children, Tribes, and States: Adoption and Custody Conflicts over American Indian Children (Carolina Academic Press forthcoming 2010) provides an overview of the book but begins with the story of my representation of a Northern Cheyenne woman in a child custody dispute two decades ago – a professional experience that fueled my longstanding interest in child welfare and custody law affecting American Indian and Alaska Native children. The book examines the policies driving the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 against the backdrop of current ICWA controversies in state courts. In addition, it explores tribal-state competition in inter-parental custody disputes involving Indian children, a contentious arena that falls outside the purview of ICWA and implicates federal, state, and tribal jurisdictional premises. The book emphasizes the emotional and political costs of jurisdictional battles in both ICWA and non-ICWA cases. I propose jurisdictional guidelines for state and tribal courts that build on respect for one another’s legitimacy and competence. At the same time, I develop analytical frameworks to address Native children’s individualized identities, perspectives, and needs.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.