Friday Job Announcements

Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law job posted on Turtle Talk, please email indigenous@law.msu.edu.

Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP

2018 Summer Law Clerks. Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP (“FPM”) is a nationwide firm dedicated to the practice of Federal Indian Law.  FPM represents Native American tribes and organizations in a wide spectrum of areas including business transactions, litigation, and governmental affairs. FPM is seeking applications from second year law students for 2018 Summer Law Clerks for offices in Louisville, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; and Sacramento, California. Applicants must be enrolled in an ABA accredited law school.  Experience or coursework in tribal and Federal Indian Law is required and/or preferred  at most FPM office locations. Applicants must also possess excellent analytical, research and communication skills, and the ability to work well independently and as a team member in a fast-paced environment.  FPM offers a competitive hourly wage for a 10 – 12-week summer position.

Applicants should e-mail a cover letter, resume, a writing sample, and law school transcripts to Ann Hacker at ahacker@ndnlaw.com no later than September 30, 2017.  The cover letter must indicate preference for each FPM office location by completing the chart below (i.e.: #1 is for the top location preference followed by 2, 3, etc. If you are not applying for consideration at a particular office location please note N/A). The cover letter should be addressed to Ann Hacker. If your preferred office location includes our Colorado office a separate cover letter needs to be addressed to the attention of Thomas W. Fredericks.

Louisville, CO
Omaha, NE
Sacramento, CA

Department of Justice

Assistant United States Attorney, District of Colorado. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is currently interviewing for an Assistant United States Attorney to serve in Durango, Colorado, as part of the Criminal Division. Closes Tuesday, September 26, 2017.

National Indian Child Welfare Association

Executive Communications Manager, Portland O.R. responsible for promoting NICWA’s public image and visibility through a variety of communications media and provides communications support to the executive director and NICWA staff. Closes Monday, October 2, 2017.

Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska

Appellate Court Administrator, Juneau, A.K. Responsible for developing and managing the Appellate Court expansion project for the Tlingit & Haida Tribal Court, which will include code drafting, hiring and administratively supervising consultants for drafting statutes, policies and procedures; working closely with the Judiciary Committee and Judges; and providing administrative support for the development of the Tlingit & Haida Trial Courts and other Southeast Alaska Tribal Courts.

National Indian Gaming Commission

FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C. Oversees the Commission’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) program. Responsible for directing the work of the FOIA office staff and developing program policy. Closes Thursday, October 5, 2017.

Ain Dah Yung Center

Indian Child Welfare Compliance Monitor, St. Paul, M.N. Provides court monitoring, education and outreach, and advocacy to ensure court compliance.

Sonosky Chambers Sachse Miller & Monkman, LLP

Attorney, Anchorage, A.K. The Sonosky Chambers firm specializes in representing Native American interests in a wide range of work involving tribal sovereignty and self-governance, health care, complex litigation, appellate and Supreme Court work, legislative affairs, and a wide range of additional matters. Additional information about our firm is available at www.sonosky.com. Interested applicants should have strong credentials and a commitment to representing Native American interests. One to four years’ experience is preferred but all qualified applicants will be considered. Please send a letter of interest, resume, writing sample and transcripts to sue@sonosky.net. All applications will be kept confidential.

Blackfeet Tribe

Staff Attorney, Browning, M.T. Responsible for general litigation matters, employment relations, legislative advocacy, and assisting tribal programs. It is preferred that an applicant have at least five (5) years experience in the practice of law. The applicant must be licensed in the State of Montana and produce a Certificate of Good Standing with the Montana State Bar. The applicant should have demonstrated interest and knowledge of federal Indian Law, administrative law, and trial advocacy.  The position requires personal integrity and the ability to produce timely and accurate written work.  Full-time with salary negotiable.  Applicant must submit to a criminal background check and pass a pre-employment drug screen. Please send a resume, three (3) references and a short writing sample to Blackfeet Legal Department, P. O. Box 849, Browning MT 59417 7777 or email blackfeetlegal@gmail.com. The position will remain open until filled. If you have questions or need further information, please contact the Blackfeet Legal Department at (406) 338-7777.

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

Tribal Health Attorney, Anchorage, A.K. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium anticipates expanding it legal team to support new and exciting initiatives to improve health care quality and access for Alaska Native patients and communities. We are seeking additional legal expertise to assist with new and developing partnerships and transactions, health care and medical staff issues, personnel matters, information technology and security issues, and regulatory compliance.

Ideal candidates will have at least seven years of experience in health law or another relevant field; an understanding of “Indian law,” the intersection between medical staff and employment issues, and government contracting; demonstrated experience working for complex clients in a team-oriented environment; exquisitely good judgment; and the ability to reconcile competing legal principles to assist ANTHC in finding innovative ways to achieve its vision that “Alaska Natives are the healthiest people in the world.”

The Consortium works with Alaska’s Tribal health organizations and over 229 federally recognized Tribes to administer the Alaska Tribal Health System. The Consortium partners with Southcentral Foundation to co-manage the 150+ bed Alaska Native Medical Center, which is a Level II Trauma Center and has achieved Magnet status in recognition of nursing excellence. ANTHC also provides community and environmental health services; constructs health clinics and water and sanitation systems in rural Alaska; develops and deploys telehealth technology; administers an epidemiology center; develops training for allied health providers; and provides technical assistance and support to other members of the Alaska Tribal Health System.

The Consortium’s main office is located in Anchorage, Alaska. In accordance with federal law, ANTHC applies Native Preference in hiring and contracting. Learn more about ANTHC at http://www.anthctoday.org/ and ANMC at http://www.anmc.org/. For more information, please direct inquiries and resumes to Nacole Heslep, General Counsel at ndheslep@anthc.org with “Tribal Attorney B” in the subject line.

Previous Friday Job Announcements: 9/8/17

WaPo Story on Native Youth Suicide

Here. An important read.

Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham on Human Rights and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham have posted a very compelling and powerful paper about the Supreme Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. It is required reading for anyone interested in the case, and is destined to be the definitive paper on the international human rights aspects of the case.

The article is titled Human Rights to Culture, Family, and Self-Determination: The Case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Here is the abstract:

The well-being of indigenous children is a subject of major concern for indigenous peoples and human rights advocates alike. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not prevent the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Indian couple. This occurred over the objections of her Cherokee biological father, extended family, and Tribal Nation. After the decision, Baby Girl’s father and the adoptive couple contested the matter in a number of proceedings, none of which considered the child’s best interests as an Indian child. The tribally-appointed attorney for Baby Girl, as well as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and National Congress for American Indians, began examining additional venues for advocacy. Believing that the human rights of Baby Girl, much like those of other similarly situated indigenous children, were being violated in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, and other instruments of international law, they asked us to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples Rights (“UNSR”). We prepared a “statement of information” to alert the UNSR of the human rights violations occurring in the case. With the permission of the attorneys and organizations involved, this chapter introduces the Baby Girl case, contextualizes the claims in international human rights law, and then reproduces the statement of information, and portions of the UNSR’s subsequent public statement. It concludes with an update on the Baby Girl case and broader discussion about the potential for using international law and legal forums to protect the human rights of indigenous children.

Text of Comments Prepared by NICWA, NCAI, and NARF in Baby Veronica Press Conference

Comments as prepared for delivery for press teleconference regarding:
National Native Organizations Announce Pursuit of Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
 
          Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians
          Terry Cross, Executive Director of National Indian Child Welfare Association
          John Echohawk, Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund
 
 
Jacqueline Pata – Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians
 
Good afternoon and good morning to you all. Thank you for joining us. My name is Jacqueline Pata, as Thom said I’m the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. I’m a member of the Raven/Sockeye Clan of the Tlingit Tribe and a member of the Central Council of the Tlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
 
Before I begin with our announcement today, I’d like to open with some context to our announcement.
 
Within the United States, there are 566 sovereign tribal nations, which are recognized as having an official nation-to-nation relationship with the United States federal government. There are many more tribes with relationships with state governments. To date, there are well over 5.2 million individuals who identify alone or in combination with another race as American Indian or Alaska Native. 
 
The National Congress of American Indians has served as the unified voice advocating for the rights of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and citizens since 1944.
 
As tribal nations we have a historic, political relationship with the United States as evidenced through numerous treaties, agreements, specific sections within the U.S. Constitution, as well as statutes which consider the unique needs and circumstances surrounding America’s first peoples.  Additionally, Indian tribes have their own laws and governance structures which are inherent in nature, but also which the US has had a strong history of supporting and nurturing through legislation like the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Self-Determination Act, and more recently, Title 9 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.  As a result, the governments and citizens of our nations occupy a unique place within the United States, as nations operating within a nation.   Also, tribes work daily with our counterparts in the federal, state, and local governments to ensure our laws are carried out in a manner that both furthers tribal self-governance, but is also grounded in strong working relationships established between tribal, federal and state governments to serve the best interests of our citizens of all our nations.
 
In essence, our citizens are both citizens of our tribal nations, and citizens of the United States. As such, individual Indians are afforded all of the same rights that every citizen within this union are afforded, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and equally as important and significant in this matter, the right to due process, as outlined in the United States’ Constitution.
Which brings me to our announcement. 
 
It is in the context of the rights of Americans and Native Americans that I announce today, along with our colleagues at the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association, our intention to pursue a lawsuit related to any violations of Baby Veronica’s civil rights in this case.
 
Late Wednesday of last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a controversial order to the state’s family court calling for an expedited transfer of custody to the South Carolina-based adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest for Veronica.  
When it comes to adoption proceedings, every court in this country has a legal obligation to put the best interests of a child first – every time, no matter the race of the child. This did not happen here. The South Carolina Court’s order represents a perilous prospect for not only Veronica, but any child involved in a custody proceeding in this country.
 
In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration for her best interests.  The decision contributes to the long and sordid history of Native American children being removed from their families without any consideration of their best interests. The National Congress of American Indians refuses to stand by as the rights of this child are violated.
 
Every American should be shocked by this decision – and in fact many Americans were, including those in the legal community, regardless of their previous opinions or stance on the case. This decision was also counter to the expectations outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments and decision to remand the case to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
 
We are talking about the rights of a nearly 4-year old child – during an extremely sensitive period in her life. Her rights to a determination of best interest hearing in the South Carolina court system in all steps leading to this decision were anticipated and were guaranteed by all parties and the laws of the United States – in fact in all previous proceedings in South Carolina Veronica’s best interest was accounted for as evidenced in two previous hearings going back as far as two years ago.
 
In those hearings, it was determined that the child’s father in fact was the best person for Veronica to reside with. And those findings were appropriate; he has raised her for the past 19 months providing a loving home while also connecting her with her Native heritage. She is also a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. These circumstances should be evaluated in a venue that affords them  their true value, such as a family court hearing to examine the best interests of the child – post the Supreme Court’s holding in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
 
We believe if her rights continue to be violated, this will represent the forced removal of a Native child from her Native family and community.
We are committed to fully examining these circumstances with all of our legal capabilities and will be calling on our allies in the civil rights and children’s rights communities to join us in standing for Veronica. Additionally, we have begun a process to notify the appropriate federal agencies of the process we have begun, including the Department of Justice.
 
I now turn today’s call over to Terry Cross of the National Indian Child Welfare Association for his statement. NICWA is a national voice for American Indian children and families, and the organization has been monitoring this case since Mr. Brown sought custody of his daughter.
 

Terry Cross – Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association
 
Thank you Jackie, the National Indian Child Welfare Association also joins with NCAI and NARF to announce our intentions today to pursue legal actions and protect the rights of Veronica Brown as a child, as an American, and as an American Indian. 
 
In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration of her best interests.  This is an alarming failure of the judicial system, and it represents a grave threat to the interests of all children in adoption proceedings, but most notably Native American children.  
 
Moving forward we’re calling on all involved – the courts, the media, and the families – to proceed with extreme caution and care during this important time for Veronica.
 
Her rights are paramount and caution must be exercised for her rights to be upheld. This also could set an unsettling precedent for future children’s rights.
 
Veronica who is now almost four-years old, is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and more importantly she is also afforded the rights of every child involved in a custody transfer within the courts of the United States – this means she should also be afforded a hearing of best interest in any pending transfer of custody proceedings.
 
Veronica’s rights, like any other child’s rights in this situation, are the same rights that every child has access to and should not be superseded for any reason.
 
Two years ago, both the South Carolina Supreme Court and Family Courts held best interest hearings and determined that it was in Veronica’s best interest to be with her father and that he was fit parent. As a result the South Carolina Supreme Court transferred custody to Mr. Brown. The legal system worked then, but it is being ignored now. It is unconscionable that no best interest hearing has been held in conjunction with the latest transfer order. Every child deserves to have his or her best interests considered – that is a fundamental right, and one that should not be denied any child.
 
The previous ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the father establishing that putting Veronica in Brown’s care was in best interest. No best interest has ever been established for a transfer to the adoptive couple during the entire time of the case.
In the South Carolina Supreme Court decision, these were the court’s words (see original decision):
“The family court found persuasive the testimony that Father was a good father who enjoyed a close relationship with his other daughter…” (p.22)
 
“We can only conclude from the evidence presented at trial that Father desires to be a parent to Baby Girl, and that he and his family have created a safe, loving, and appropriate home for her….” (p.23)
 
“Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl’s best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.” (p.26)

And if the Court points to the fact that two provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act no longer applies, the court should consider their own words in the original decision;
 
‘South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.”…This important history is not replaced by the ICWA’s mandate.” (p.24)
 
To understand that all parties involved called for these rights to be upheld, you only need to look to the comments delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl as heard by the Justices months ago.
 
As the official representative for the child in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, Paul Clement the attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem, made it very clear in his statements that if remanded back to the South Carolina Court there was every expectation that a hearing of best interest for Veronica must be held in order to uphold her rights.
 
His statements read as follows,

“I’m here representing the guardian who represents the best interest of the child. From the child’s perspective, the child really doesn’t care whose fault it was when they were brought in one custodial situation or another. They just want a determination that focuses on at the relevant time, that time, what’s in their best interest. And so in the same way that we think if you rule in our favor and you remand to the lower court that there has to be a best interest determination that takes into account the current situation,” (p.24)

There is even more information offered in the arguments made by Mr. Clement that point to the expectation that a best interest would be held, as well as in the Guardian’s Amicus to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will supply you those documents if you do not have them, as well as the audio clips of those oral arguments. (Click here to access the full transcript (p.24) and audio of this exchange between Clement and Justices.) 
 
Our organizations  are committed to supporting NARF as they look toward potential litigation to ensure Veronica’s rights will be protected.
 
The National Indian Child Welfare Association  is concerned every time the rights of a child are violated, particularly when that child is a citizen of an Indian nation. We have long stood for Veronica and we will not stand idly by as her rights are overridden.
 
I now turn to John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, the nation’s pre-eminent nonprofit law firm dedicated to asserting and defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals nationwide.
 
John Echohawk – Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund
 
The Native American Rights Fund –NARF – joins with the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Child Welfare Association today, and with many others inside and outside of Indian country, in support of Dusten Brown, his family and the Cherokee Nation. 
 
As you know, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its order last Wednesday, and gave Dusten and the Cherokee Nation five (5) days to file their petitions for rehearing.  Those petitions will be filed today.
 
When, as anticipated, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denies those petitions for rehearing, its order will become final and this case will be remanded to the State Family Court [quote] “for the prompt entry of an order approving and finalizing Adoptive Couple’s adoption of Baby Girl” [end quote].  As reflected in the order, the courts of the State of South Carolina can summarily terminate Dusten’s rights as a father and—without any hearing on what is in the best interests of this Indian child—and without any regard for due process of law to protect her civil rights—can remove Baby Veronica from her Indian father, her Indian family, and her Indian tribe with whom she has been living with for the past 18 months.
 
This injustice cannot stand!  As it has since it was established in 1970—NARF will stand firm for justice.
 
As Executive Director of NARF, I have instructed my legal staff to work with local counsel in South Carolina and Oklahoma to determine our best legal recourse through the federal courts to protect the rights of Baby Veronica.  In this case, we strongly believe that federal civil rights laws are being violated, that other applicable provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act are being ignored by the state courts, and that the principles underlying treaty and international law protecting the rights of indigenous peoples are being undermined.
Thank you.
 
#END#

National Organizations Issue Press Release in Baby Veronica Matter

National Native Organizations Announce Pursuit of
Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
Lack of hearing to determine best interest driving concerns of child’s rights violations
 
Washington, DC – Three of the nation’s leading tribal organizations announced today they are in the early stages of pursuing litigation to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts.
 
Late Wednesday of last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a controversial order to the state’s family court calling for an expedited transfer of custody to the South Carolina-based adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest for Veronica.   It is standard procedure that adoption proceedings require a hearing to determine the best interest of the child in advance of any transfer proceedings, an essential step the South Carolina Supreme Court failed to take, thus denying Veronica the right to have her best interests considered.
 
Leaders of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) said they were compelled to begin a process to represent the rights of Veronica in the situation, based on the Court’s order.
 
“When it comes to adoption proceedings, every court in this country has a legal obligation to put the best interests of a child first – every time, no matter the race of the child. This did not happen here. The South Carolina Court’s order represents a perilous prospect for not only Veronica, but any child involved in a custody proceeding in this country,” said Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of NCAI.  “In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration for her best interests.  The decision contributes to the long and sordid history of Native American children being removed from their families without any consideration of their best interests. The National Congress of American Indians refuses to stand by as the rights of this child are violated.”
 
Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association outlined the history of best interest determinations within the case and how they run contrary to the order issued by the court last Wednesday:
 
“Two years ago, both the South Carolina Supreme Court and Family Courts held best interest hearings and determined that it was in Veronica’s best interest to be with her father and that he was fit parent,” said Cross. “As a result the South Carolina Supreme Court transferred custody to Mr. Brown. The legal system worked then, but it is being ignored now. It is unconscionable that no best interest hearing has been held in conjunction with the latest transfer order. Every child deserves to have his or her best interests considered – that is a fundamental right, and one that should not be denied any child.”
 
The previous ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the father establishing that putting Veronica in Brown’s care was in best interest. No best interest has ever been established for a transfer to the adoptive couple during the entire time of the case. The organization’s pointed to the court’s findings to favor Brown, thus leading to the placement (see original decision):
“The family court found persuasive the testimony that Father was a good father who enjoyed a close relationship with his other daughter…” (p.22)

“We can only conclude from the evidence presented at trial that Father desires to be a parent to Baby Girl, and that he and his family have created a safe, loving, and appropriate home for her….” (p.23)

“Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl’s best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.” (p.26)
Additionally, the presenters addressed the issue that certain provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act no longer applied. Cross identified that in the court’s own decision in the original case it was stated that;
 
‘South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.”…This important history is not replaced by the ICWA’s mandate.” (p.24)
 
The organization’s also highlighted the comments of Paul Clement the official representative for the child in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, and the lawyer arguing for attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem, stating that if remanded back to the South Carolina Court there was every expectation that a hearing of best interest for Veronica must be held in order to uphold her rights;
 
“I’m here representing the guardian who represents the best interest of the child. From the child’s perspective, the child really doesn’t care whose fault it was when they were brought in one custodial situation or another. They just want a determination that focuses on at the relevant time, that time, what’s in their best interest. And so in the same way that we think if you rule in our favor and you remand to the lower court that there has to be a best interest determination that takes into account the current situation,” (p.24)
 
Click here to access the full transcript (p.24) and audio of this exchange between Clement and Justices. 
 
John Echohawk, Executive Director of NARF, the nation’s leading non-profit law firm which has represented the interests of Indians and Indian tribes in federal and state courts since 1970 outlined the next steps to be taken by the organizations:
 
As you know, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its order last Wednesday, and gave Dusten and the Cherokee Nation five (5) days to file their petitions for rehearing.  Those petitions will be filed today.
 
When, as anticipated, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denies those petitions for rehearing, its order will become final and this case will be remanded to the State Family Court [quote] “for the prompt entry of an order approving and finalizing Adoptive Couple’s adoption of Baby Girl” [end quote].  As reflected in the order, the courts of the State of South Carolina can summarily terminate Dusten’s rights as a father and—without any hearing on what is in the best interests of this Indian child—and without any regard for due process of law to protect her civil rights—can remove Baby Veronica from her Indian father, her Indian family, and her Indian tribe with whom she has been living with for the past 18 months.
 
As Executive Director of NARF, I have instructed my legal staff to work with local counsel in South Carolina and Oklahoma to determine our best legal recourse through the federal courts to protect the rights of Baby Veronica.  In this case, we strongly believe that federal civil rights laws are being violated, that other applicable provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act are being ignored by the state courts, and that the principles underlying treaty and international law protecting the rights of indigenous peoples are being undermined.
 

Baby Veronica Press Conference — 1 PM Eastern Today

National Native Organizations to Announce Their
Next Legal Steps Related to Baby Veronica Case
 
Organizations:
Native American Rights Fund (NARF),
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),

and National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA)
 
Monday July 22, 2013 – 1 p.m. eastern
(877) 856-2376 – Call ID# 22752930
 
Washington, DC – The three leading national Native advocacy organizations monitoring the custody case of “Baby Veronica”, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, will announce the next legal steps they plan to take related to the ongoing case.  The announcement comes following last week’s order by the South Carolina Supreme Court to the State’s Family Court to expedite the custody transfer process of Veronica from her father, also a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, to the adoptive couple involved in the case. 
 
What: National press teleconference with national Native organizations to outline their next legal steps related to Baby Veronica case.
 
When: Monday, July 22, 2013 –  1 p.m. eastern / 12 p.m. central  
 
Details: (877) 856-2376 – Call ID# 22752930
 
Who: Leaders of three leading national tribal advocacy organizations monitoring Baby Veronica case:
          Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians
          John Echohawk, Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund
          Terry Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association

NICWA to Host Webinar on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Time: 11 a.m. Pacific / 2 p.m. Eastern
Presenter: Adrian Smith, JD, MSW, NICWA government affairs associate

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a South Carolina adoption case involving the Indian Child Welfare Act. This high profile and emotionally charged case has garnered significant attention in the past year. Oral arguments are expected to occur in late April, and a decision announced shortly thereafter.

The National Indian Child Welfare Association will host a webinar for those interested in learning:

  • What are the background and facts of the case?
  • What are the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court?
  • What possible implications will this case have on Indian Country?
  • What is being done nationally in preparation for this hearing?

This free webinar is open to all. Register here.

Hat tip to NILL’s blog.

A Reception to Benefit the National Indian Child Welfare Association

A Reception to Benefit the National Indian Child Welfare Association

You are cordially invited to attend a reception to benefit NICWA.
Come and learn more about NICWA’s efforts to improve the lives American Indian children and families, and how you can help.
Enjoy the company of party hosts, community guests, and NICWA staff for an evening of food, friends, and fun.

Date:
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 6pm – 9pm
Location:
Luella Collins Community Center
Address:
419 126th Avenue
Shelbyville, MI 49344

You can sign up here.

Indian Children Overrepresented in Foster Care

From Indianz:

Report: Too many Native children in foster care
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

American Indian and Alaskan Native children are overrepresented in the foster care system, according to a report released on Monday.

“Time for Reform: A Matter of Justice for American Indian and Alaskan Native Children” is a joint report from the National Indian Child Welfare Association and the Kids Are Waiting campaign of The Pew Charitable Trusts. It examined child welfare data across the nation. According to the report, Native children are overrepresented in the foster care system at more than 1.6 times the expected level. Native children are more likely to be considered victims of neglect than any other racial or ethnic group. In Alaska, Native children are 51 percent of foster care cases but only 20 percent of the child population. In Montana, Native children are 33 percent of foster care cases but only 10 percent of the child population. The report calls on Congress to authorize tribes to receive funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, an entitlement program that reimburses states for a portion of foster care costs. States receive billions of dollars under the program.

Get the Story:
American Indians overrepresented (The Salt Lake Tribune 11/20)

Relevant Documents:
Report | Press Release

Relevant Links:
National Indian Child Welfare Association – http://www.nicwa.org