Michigan Court of Appeals

Here is the opinion in In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5 [Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Michigan Public Service Commission].

Michigan COA Decision on Standard of Review of Michigan Official’s Consent to Adoption of Indian Child

May 28, 2024Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the opinions in In re JCR:

Majority Opinion .pdf Download

Concurring Opinion.pdf Download

Split Michigan COA Affirms Placement of Indian Child in Foster Care

May 6, 2024Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the majority opinion in In re Peters/Brinton/Mathews and in In re Brinton (note the complete absence of any mention of ICWA or MIFPA)

Majority.pdf Download

And here is Judge Maldonado’s dissent, which is based entirely on ICWA/MIFPA and is 🔥:

Dissent.pdf Download

Allie Maldonado Appointed to Michigan Court of Appeals!!!

December 6, 2022December 6, 2022Singel

Here.

Recent UCCJEA Cases Involving Tribal Courts

August 17, 2022Kate Fort

There has been a small spate of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act cases this year involving family law cases and tribal courts. In most states, tribes are considered “states” for the purposes of determining a child’s “home state” jurisdiction. These are generally (but not always) non-ICWA cases like parental custody and child support. These kind of cases seem rare to practitioners, but nationally there’s a fair number of them (and will continue to be the kind of reasoning tribal and state judges will need to engage in to as more and more cases arise in this subject area).

McGrathBressette (Michigan, child custody v. child protection)

MontanaLDC (Montana, child custody)

NevadaBlount (Nevada, third party custody)

(And yes, I have a pile of ICWA cases to share with you that have built up in the last month or so.)

Michigan SCT Holds KBIC Workers Did Not Violate State Tobacco Law When Transporting Unstamped Smokes

August 2, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion and the materials in People v. Magnant:

Prior post here.

Six ICWA/MIFPA Cases in Three Months in Michigan

March 23, 2021Kate Fort

Not sure what’s going on, but here are the (unpublished) cases so far this year:

In re King/Koon	7-Jan	2020	Court of Appeals	Grand Traverse	Michigan	Un	Notice
In re K. Nesbitt	11-Feb	2021	Court of Appeals	Hillsdale	Michigan	Un	Notice
In re Stambaugh/Pantoja	11-Feb	2021	Court of Appeals	St. Joseph	Michigan	Un	Notice
In re Banks	18-Feb	2021	Court of Appeals	Wayne	Michigan	Un	Notice
In re Dunlop-Bates	18-Feb	2021	Court of Appeals	Livingston	Michigan	Un	Active Efforts
In re Cottelit/Payment	18-Mar	2021	Court of Appeals	Chippewa	Michigan	Un	Qualified Expert Witness

For comparison, Michigan had 6 cases total in 2020, 7 in 2019, 8 in 2018. These counts include both published and unpublished cases–while I kind of understand why the Court of Appeals designates so many as unpublished, it obscures how many MIFPA cases we have if we only count published cases.

Michigan COA Holds Mackinac Tribe Member May Have Treaty Rights

February 15, 2021February 26, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in People v. Caswell:

Opinion

An excerpt:

Defendant, Walter Joseph Caswell, is a member of the Mackinac Tribe of Odawa and Ojibwa Indians (the “Mackinac Tribe”). In October 2018, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officer cited defendant for spear fishing in a closed stream in violation of MCL 324.48715 and MCL 324.48711.1 Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that he was a member of an Indian tribe or band granted hunting and fishing rights by 1836 and 1855 treaties with the United States federal government. The Mackinac County district court granted defendant’s motion upon concluding that the Mackinac Tribe was entitled to rights under the relevant treaties. On appeal from the prosecutor, the Mackinac County circuit court reversed on the ground that the Mackinac Tribe was not federally recognized and that federal tribal recognition is a matter for initial determination by the United States Department of the Interior. We granted defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.

Briefs:

353537_13_01.pdf-AT Brf

353537_16_01.pdf-AE Brf

353537_19_01.pdf-Reply

353537_29_01.pdf–Amicus 1

353537_32_01.pdf-Amicus 2