notice

Unpublished California Notice Case Cites 2015 BIA Guidelines

Kate Fort3 Comments

Court reversed and remanded for ICWA notice compliance. Opinion here.

The recently updated “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings” (Guidelines) provide that tribes have the sole jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a child is eligible for membership. (Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 10146-02 (Feb. 25, 2015), § B.3(b) & (c), p. 10153.) Tribes that are not notified of dependency proceedings cannot assert their rights under ICWA. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739.) “Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the terms of the Act to conclude . . . that parental inaction could excuse the failure of the juvenile court to ensure that notice under the Act was provided to the Indian tribe named in the proceeding.” (Ibid.) Thus, parents in a dependency proceeding are permitted to raise ICWA notice issues on appeal even where no mention was made of the issue in the juvenile court. (In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1195.) Accordingly, we reject the Agency’s assertion that Mother forfeited any ICWA issue when she failed to object to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding.

ICWA Notice Case out of Washington Court of Appeals

Kate Fort

Here.

The Blackfoot/Blackfeet notice issue comes up pretty regularly. Depending on what court the parent is in, the Department may or may not be ordered to notice Blackfeet even if a parent says Blackfoot. In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals said the was no need to notice Blackfeet when dad said Blackfoot and Cree. According to the opinion, notice went out to “several Cherokee, Cree, and Hopi Indian tribes.”

Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals ICWA/MIFPA Notice Case

Kate Fort

Here.

While it looks like the State gave notice to Cherokee Nation and Blackfeet Tribe with all the information on the record, and it’s also good the State noticed local Michigan tribes (State is required to contact a tribe in the county where the child is located under 712B.9(3)), the original notice to *all* of the tribes should be in the record. And noticing UKB when a parent claims Cherokee is not something above and beyond, but what the State is supposed to do (along with CNO and Eastern Band):

In addition to the above notifications, the lower court record contains evidence of additional efforts made by DHS to ascertain whether RI and KI had Indian heritage. Specifically, the record contains a response from the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma indicating that neither RI nor KI were members, although the lower court record does not contain the original notification sent to that tribe. Additionally, the record contains responses from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan indicating that neither RI nor KI were members or eligible for membership, although the lower court record again does not contain the original notifications sent to that tribe. Finally, the record contains copies of both the notifications to, and a response from, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians; membership in that tribe was also denied. In addition to the above record evidence, DHS reports indicate that notifications were sent to a plethora of other tribes, and that membership in those tribes was denied.

Unpublished California ICWA Inquiry Case Requires Reversal of Orders

Kate Fort

Here. Out of Ventura County.

Although mother and the maternal grandmother advised HSA of Olivia’s Choctaw ancestry, no further inquiry was made. Had HSA asked, it would have learned that the maternal great-grandmother, Roberta Mae J., is alive, is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation, and was born on the Kiowa Reservation in Lawton, Oklahoma.

***

After the writ petition was filed, mother’s counsel submitted certificates and enrollment applications to the Choctaw Nation tribe. On May 5, 2015, we granted mother’s request to take additional evidence that Choctaw Nation issued membership cards to mother and Olivia on April 15, 2015. The tribe’s determination that Olivia is a member of Choctaw Nation is conclusive. (§ 224.3, subd. (e)(1); In re Jack C.III (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 967, 980; Dwayne P. v. Superior Court (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 247, 255.) HSA’s failure to comply with the ICWA notice requirements before the six month review hearing requires that we reverse the February 2, 2015 order terminating reunification services, the order granting Olivia’s caretakers de facto parent status, and the order for a section 366.26 hearing.

Briefs in California Supreme Court ICWA Notice Case

Kate Fort1 Comment

Lower court decision

Case Summary:

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order terminating parental rights. This case presents the following issue: Does a parent’s failure to appeal from a juvenile court order finding that notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act was unnecessary preclude the parent from subsequently challenging that finding more than a year later in the course of appealing an order terminating parental rights?

Petitioner/Mother’s Brief

Respondent LA County DCFS

United States Amicus Brief

California Unpublished Stipulated Complete Lack of Notice Case

Kate Fort

Here. The Department and trial court ignored federal law, state law, the new Guidelines, and the proposed Regulations:

In September 2013, paternal grandmother indicated that the child may have ancestry in the Soboba Indian Tribe. There is no indication of notice to the Soboba Indian Tribe in the record. Regardless, at the detention hearing held September 18, 2013, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.
The court terminated father’s parental rights as to L.C. at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.

Fourth District, Riverside County.

Commentary on Two Different (Unpublished) Notice Cases from California

Kate Fort3 Comments

On average we receive around a case a day out of California that mentions ICWA, and usually in the notice context. We don’t post all of them, and the vast majority of them are unpublished. But over the last couple of days, we’ve received two that demonstrate the large inconsistencies across the state when it comes to determining if the child is an Indian child, and notice procedures. Neither of these cases are outliers from the hundreds that go up each year, other than the difference in treatment caught our eye. This also demonstrates the difficulty in identifying exactly where additional resources need to be dedicated to ICWA enforcement–it’s not on a fifty state level, it’s on a county-by-county level.

In the first, out of the First Appellate District (Del Norte County) mother says her grandma told her their family may be from the “Comanche Nation.” Notice went out to Comanche, and the Nation said the child was not eligible for enrollment. However, on appeal, the court found

As noted, the only information the Department provided for the maternal grandmother—Nina’s mother—was her name and an incomplete address (“Grant’s Pass,Oregon”). The record contains evidence,however, suggesting that with a minimal amount of inquiry, the Department would have been able to obtain additional information regarding the grandmother. First, the family was involved in a dependency proceeding when Nina was a minor. By its own admission, the Department reviewed that file as part of the instant proceeding and, at a very minimum, would have been able to glean the grandmother’s date of birth, which was unquestionably in the file. This directly refutes the Department’s claim that “there is no indication that the social worker left out any available information.”

***

It was incumbent upon the Department to interview her extended family members to obtain whatever further details it could about the family’s Native American heritage.

In the second case, out of the Fourth Appellate District (San Diego County), mother said her family was affiliated with the “Winnebago Sioux tribe in Decorah, Iowa.” The social worker talked to mother and grandmother about it, and found “no one in the family ever lived on a reservation, attended an Indian school, participated in Indian ceremonies or received services from an Indian health clinic.” The court found

We conclude that proper inquiry was conducted to determine whether K.P. was a Native American child within the meaning for ICWA. The court questioned mother and her mother concerning the family’s Native American heritage. According to these relatives, no family members had ever been registered or eligible for enrollment with a tribe and the court was not required to give notice.

In both cases, the claims were attenuated. But regardless, the claims received very different treatment between the two trial courts–in the first, where the Department did not do enough inquiry, notice at least went out to the Comanche Nation. In the second, no one notified Winnebago (nor Ho-Chunk, for that matter), nor allowed either Nation to determine whether this family might be related. And then on appeal, both received very different treatment from the appellate courts. In the first, the court had to do better notice. In the second, the court didn’t have to do any notice.

ICWA Notice Case Out of New Jersey

Kate Fort

Here.

To minimize the delay in securing permanency and stability for Ann, the trial court shall ensure that the notices are sent forthwith. The judgment terminating parental rights shall be deemed affirmed if after being served with the requisite notices under the ICWA: (1) no tribe responds to the notices within the time provided under the ICWA; (2) no tribe determines within the time allotted under the ICWA that Ann is an Indian child as defined by the ICWA; or (3) the court determines, after the tribes have been given an opportunity to intervene, that the ICWA does not to apply to this matter. If Ann is determined to be an Indian child under the ICWA, the judgment terminating parental rights shall be vacated and the trial court shall hold further proceedings consistent with the ICWA. All proceedings shall be conducted as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the overarching goal of attaining permanency for Ann.

Three (Unpublished) California ICWA Cases

Kate Fort

One notice opinion involving relationships with the Pala Band of Mission Indians and perhaps a Cahuilla tribe, but of course, the department would have to send notice to determine that.

A second opinion holding the rules requiring CPS to help enroll a child in her tribe (Cherokee) as active efforts are valid

Consistent with this state interest in protecting an Indian child’s interest in tribal membership, rules 5.482 and 5.484 impose an affirmative duty on the juvenile court and the county welfare department to make an active effort to obtain tribal membership for a child when the tribe has notified the county welfare department that the child is eligible. To the extent the rules require CPS to make a reasonable, active attempt to obtain tribal membership for a child, we conclude the rules do not expand or conflict with the state or federal statutory definition of an Indian child. The rules’ requirement that CPS “provide active efforts under rule 5.484(c) to secure tribal membership for the child” (rule 5.482(c)) furthers the objective of ICWA and has no bearing on the ICWA definition of “Indian child.”

***

CPS received four requests to complete an enrollment application, beginning in December 2012, and still had not done so over six months later. The record does not show any reason for CPS not providing the Tribe with a completed, signed enrollment application by the time of the section 366.26 hearing in June 2013.
We therefore conclude CPS failed to comply with rules 5.482(c) and 5.484(c) by not taking reasonable, active steps to secure tribal membership for the children. Such error was not harmless. Active efforts to obtain membership for the children likely would lead to the children becoming Tribe members subject to ICWA protections, and would enable the Tribe to intervene if it so chose.

Finally, a fairly standard ICWA notice case, where even after the following, the parents were asked in court to stipulate that this was not an ICWA case.

In this case, Father provided the name and contact information for his uncle who he believed could provide more information about the children’s grandmother who was alleged to have Cherokee ancestry. There is no evidence in the record the Agency contacted the uncle. Further, the agency did not respond to the repeated requests from the Cherokee Nation for additional information. The Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain any additional family history. Under these circumstances, we find the ICWA notice was inadequate because the Cherokee Nation was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to determine if M.S., E.S., and A.S. were Indian children.

Two Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals Child Welfare Opinions

Kate Fort

Here.

This case was a conditional reversal for ICWA notice violations.

Here.

This case is not an ICWA case (father claimed Tuscarora but neither he nor child were eligible). There’s a lot going on in this case, especially given the medical concerns of the child. However, there are two reasons I post it: the first is the exchange between father and the referee when father wants to wait to have an attorney present– on page 3. The second is the reason the maternal grandmother was denied placement, detailed on page 4.