Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik – Page 3

DOJ Amicus Brief in SD ICWA Class Action Case

August 15, 2014August 21, 2014Kate Fort3 Comments

The United States came in strongly on the side of the tribes and tribal families for both the enforcement of ICWA and meaningful due process.

Here.

Thus, from the very start of an emergency removal, Section 1922 requires state courts, agencies, and officials to actively investigate and evaluate whether the emergency situation has ended. Given the statutory requirements for oversight and “immediate” action, this ongoing obligation cannot be deferred for weeks or months until the next scheduled hearing occurs.

***

The interest that parents have in the custody of their children is not to be lightly interfered with, even following an emergency situation. While an emergency proceeding such as the 48- hour hearing may not permanently deprive parents of their custody rights, even a temporary deprivation of physical custody requires a prompt and meaningful hearing.

Memorandum in support of leave to file amicus here.

Motion for Leave to File here.

Update — The court granted the motion the next day:

123 DCT Order Granting US Motion

Previous coverage here.

Oglala Sioux Tribe Evidentiary Exhibits Supporting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

August 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

Exhibit 1 (Hearing Transcripts) 502 pp

Exhibit 2 (Custody Orders) 113 pp.

Exhibit 7 (ICWA Affidavits) 145 pages

Exhibit 8 (Petitions for Temp Custody) 7 pages

The motions are posted here.

ACLU Blog Post on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

July 25, 2014Kate Fort

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Federal Court Grants Motion to Seal Evidence re: Judge Davis in Oglala ICWA Class Action

July 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

112 DCT Order Granting Motion to Seal

113 OST42(MotionToUnseal)

Two Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

July 14, 2014Kate Fort3 Comments

Brief in Support of First Motion (July 2014)

Statement of Undisputed Facts (First Motion)

As a result of the fact that (a) Defendants allowed no testimony at 48-hour hearings, (b) Defendants allowed no cross-examination at 48-hour hearings, (c) often the only questions asked of the parents in a 48-hour hearing were for purposes of identification and to see if they understood their rights, and (d) Defendants never conducted the inquiries required by 25 U.S.C. § 1922, Defendants’ 48-hour hearings were completed rather quickly. Judging from the length of the transcripts that were produced, the average length of time it took to complete a 48-hour hearing, Plaintiffs estimate, was under four minutes. A number of these hearings appear to have been completed in about sixty seconds.

The brief goes on to describe the many, many individual hearings where children were kept in DSS care for 45 or 60 days with absolutely to no evidence or testimony as to why.

Due Process Motion (Second PSJ)

Due Process Undisputed Facts

Update in South Dakota ICWA Class Action — Is Judge Davis Concealing Evidence?

July 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are new pleadings in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

99 Judge Davis Response

100 Oglala Sioux Tribe Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs possess a document that strongly suggests that Judge Davis is concealing information prejudicial to his case. If Plaintiffs are correct, then the Court will need to determine whether that document and the brief that Plaintiffs are filing under seal should be unsealed, whether any sanctions against Judge Davis are warranted, and whether Judge Davis should be ordered to disclose any other incriminating evidence that he may be concealing. For now, Plaintiffs will respond to Judge Davis’s brief as if the injurious evidence that Plaintiffs have in their possession does not exist and will await the Court’s ruling on that matter.

101 Oglala Sioux Tribe Motion To File Under Seal

OST’s second motion to compel is here.

Second Motion to Compel in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

June 18, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

98 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel

An excerpt:

The only information that Interrogatory No. 11 seeks to discover is whether Judge Davis discussed any 48-hour procedures with other judges on the Seventh Judicial Circuit. It is difficult to imagine an interrogatory more related to Plaintiffs’ burden of proof than Interrogatory No. 11. See Disc. Op. at *6 (“In this case, in order to be successful, plaintiffs must prove the defendants engaged in policies, practices and customs which violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”).

Materials on prior motion to compel is here.

Kate Fort’s ICWA Blog Post on Concurring Opinions

May 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Kate discusses Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, the South Dakota class action alleging massive due process violations involving Indian children. Well worth the read.

News Article on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

May 7, 2014Kate Fort

Here.

While written court orders are obviously important, court transcripts reflect far more what it is like to be a parent in a fast and confusing hearing about your children. Also makes for a strong argument for these to be public hearings rather than confidential ones. It’s far from a complete solution, but sunshine usually helps more than it hurts.