removal

Statement from the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on Child Separation at the Border

Kate Fort

Statement_June2018

The United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples joins the concern expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and others regarding the situation of families, children, and individuals being detained in the United States of America at its southern border with Mexico. We call on the United States immediately to reunite children, parents, and caregivers that have been separated to date, and to ensure their basic human rights to family, safety, and security.

In addition, the Expert Mechanism calls attention to the particular impact of the United States’ practices regarding international border detentions and prosecutions on indigenous peoples. Many of the individuals now being stopped at the border are of indigenous origin, including Kekchi, Tzutujil, Kacqchikel, and Mam-speakers and other Maya from Guatemala, as well as indigenous peoples from Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, and other countries. In many instances, they are fleeing situations of economic, social, and political unrest in their homelands where they have been denied rights to self-determination and territory, and have faced discrimination and violence.

The Expert Mechanism expresses particular concern regarding the vulnerability of indigenous children. Many countries, including the United States, have a long history of forced removal of indigenous children from their families, a practice that is now universally condemned by the human rights communities and by federal law in the U.S. because of the trauma it causes to children, their families, and their communities.

More broadly, indigenous peoples, whether migrants or not, have rights under international
instruments including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by 148 nations across the world, including the United States. These include the right to maintain indigenous cultural identity, to be free from forced family separation, to speak their languages (and have translation services), to be free from discrimination and violence, and indeed to migrate. In some instances current international borders cross indigenous peoples’ homelands, including in the case of the Yaqui and Tohono O’odham people who have territory and family members on both side of the Mexico border. We call on the United States to recognize the particular situation of indigenous peoples in its border practices and policies and to uphold the rights and responsibilities set forth in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Also, here is Mark Trahant’s piece, our previous post with NAICJA’s statement, and NCJFCJ’s statement (which went out on our Twitter feed but not here).

ICWA Case Out of Alaska Supreme Court

Kate Fort

Here.

Parents appeal from a superior court’s order that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) had satisfied the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) requirements authorizing the removal of their daughter, an Indian child, from their custody. Because
the court relied on information that was not in evidence to make the required ICWA removal findings, we vacate the order authorizing removal.

Michigan Court of Appeals Decides MIFPA Application to Removal of Child from the Home

Kate Fort

Here is the opinion in In re Detmer/Beaudry. The question of whether an involuntary removal of a child triggers ICWA if the child is not placed in “foster home or institution or home of a guardian or conservator” 25 U.S.C. 1903(1)(i) is one that comes up pretty regularly. This case addresses that question under the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) and concludes that when a child is removed from respondent mother and placed with his non-respondent father, that removal still triggers MIFPA’s protections. The court focused on the dictionary definition of “removed” and found:

Thus, we understand “removed” in MCL 719B.15(2) to mean the instance when a court orders that a child be physically transferred or moved from the care and residence of a parent or custodian to the care and residence of some other person or institution. Based on this understanding, it becomes clear that the trial court erred with respect to AB. Over respondent mother’s objection, the trial court ordered that AB be physically placed with his nonrespondent father. AB had previously resided with respondent-mother and spent every other weekend with his nonrespondent father. The trial court’s order moved AB’s residence to his nonrespondent father’s home and conditioned respondent-mother’s visitation on the discretion of DHHS. Under our reading of MCL 712B.15(2), the trial court “removed” AB from respondent-mother.

***

Because AB was removed from a parent, the trial court was required under MIFPA to make findings on whether active efforts were made to provide remedial services, whether those efforts were successful, and whether respondent-mother’s continued custody of AB posed a risk of emotional or physical harm to the child. MCL 712B.15(2). The trial court was similarly required to hear testimony of a qualified expert witness concerning these matters. MCL 712B.15(2). The trial court made no such findings and heard no such testimony, and this was reversible error.

The ICWA Appellate Clinic at MSU Law co-authored the Tribe’s brief in this case.

Sault Tribe Chairman Controversy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From Soo Evening News (H/T Indianz):

Board seeks Payment’s removal

 

Sault Tribal Board considers resolution to remove Chairman from office

SAULT STE. MARIE – Tribal Chairman Aaron Payment issued a press release early this morning announcing the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board of Directors is considering a resolution to remove him from office. Payment also indicated that this action would render him ineligible to seek re-election later this year.

Continue reading →