Here is the opinion in In re B.C.
South Dakota Supreme Court Dismisses ICWA Appeal by Parents for Failure to Serve Notice on Intervening Tribes
Here is the opinion in In re B.C.
South Dakota Supreme Court
South Dakota Transportation Commission Finally Earmarks $$$ To Implement Pourier Decision
S.D. Supreme Court Reverses Termination of Parental Rights in ICWA Case
The South Dakota Supreme Court in People ex rel. J.I.H. held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the rights of a Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe parent should be terminated.
An excerpt:
The trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s rights was the least restrictive alternative and in the children’s best interests hinged on Father’s incarceration. We recognize that “when assessing what options are available to prepare the parent for the return of a child, incarceration narrows the available options.” D.G., 2004 SD 54, ¶ 17, 679 NW2d at 502. Nonetheless, “[t]he decision to terminate requires evidence of sufficient magnitude to convince the trial court that the best interests of the children require the breakup of the family unit .” In re S.S., 334 NW2d 59, 61 (SD 1983) (emphasis added). “If, on a review of the record, it appears that the state’s compelling interest in the well-being and welfare of the children can reasonably be [e]nsured by less intrusive means, we must order that those alternatives first be implemented.” S.R., 323 NW2d at 888.
The record indicates that Grandmother was willing to be a long-term placement option for these children. Her home study had been approved, and only one final requirement remained for her to become a registered foster care provider. Grandmother’s sister also showed interest in being a placement option. Neither of these two possibilities was explored. Father was scheduled for release from jail in December 2008, which was seven months away from the date of the dispositional hearing. Due to his limited incarceration period, legal guardianship would have been a less restrictive alternative until Father was able to care for his children.
Notably, the children’s attorney did not advocate for termination of Father’s rights, and it cannot be ignored that the ICWA expert testified that termination of Father’s parental rights, at that time, was premature. We agree. Based on the circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights.
South Dakota Governor Urged to Nominate American Indian State SCT Justice
From the Sioux Fall Argus Leader (via How Appealing):
Judge Tony Portra of Aberdeen is one-eighth Turtle Mountain Chippewa.
There is no official data on the race or ethnicity of the 38 circuit judges in South Dakota, or the five members of the state’s Supreme Court, but it appears Portra is the only one with a minority background.
In a state where more than 8 percent of the citizens and 25 percent of the male prison population are Native American, many are watching as Gov. Mike Rounds prepares to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.
South Dakota Supreme Court Suppresses Evidence Taken by Tribal Law Enforcement under the Indian Civil Rights Act
Maybe I’m missing something, but HOLY COW! Now state courts have jurisdiction under the Indian Civil Rights Act?!?!? I thought Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez settled the question, holding that tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over ICRA claims.
This case, State v. Madsen, decided two days ago by the South Dakota Supreme Court, has no discussion of the court’s jurisdiction to apply ICRA to tribal law enforcement, so maybe there’s some agreement or something in which the tribe (Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe) agreed to state court adjudication of ICRA claims arising out of police activities at the tribe’s casino.
South Dakota v. Grand River Enterprises — Appellate Briefs
We previously posted on a South Dakota Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Grand River Enterprises here. Here are the briefs:
South Dakota v. Grand River Enterprises — State Long Arm Statute Does Not Reach All Tribal Enterprises
Here is the South Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Grand River Enterprises. From the opinion:
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (Grand River), a Canadian cigarette manufacturer, moved the circuit court to vacate three default judgments arising out of the sale of cigarettes in the State of South Dakota. Grand River argued that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction because Grand River had not purposefully availed itself of the South Dakota market sufficient to permit jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the jurisdictional issue, the circuit court granted the motions. We affirm.
Two State Supreme Court Cases Decided This Week
The first, In the Interest of N.N.E., an Iowa Supreme Court case involving the Tyme Maidu Tribe in California, struck down a portion of the Iowa ICWA.
The second, Langdeau v. Langdeau, a South Dakota Supreme Court case involving an Indian Country divorce proceeding, rejected exclusive tribal court jurisdiction over the case.
Primeaux v. Dooley – Preemptory Striking of Indian Jurors
Here is the opinion from the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Like all the other cases on this subject, the court held that striking American Indians from the juror pool does not create enough racial disparity to justify reversal of a conviction of an American Indian. If Indians are too small a percentage of the general population in South Dakota, where would there ever be a violation?
Turtle Talk 