tribal membership – Page 3

The rule provides: “If after notice has been provided as required by federal and state law a tribe responds indicating that the child is eligible for membership if certain steps are followed, the court must proceed as if the child is an Indian child and direct the appropriate individual or agency to provide active efforts under rule 5.484(c) to secure tribal membership for the child.” (Rule 5.482(c), italics added.) We conclude the rule is invalid as a matter of state law.

But this rule to be valid:

Rule 5.484(c)(2) provides: “In addition to any other required findings to place an Indian child with someone other than a parent or Indian custodian, or to terminate parental rights, the court must find that active efforts have been made . . . to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and must find that these efforts were unsuccessful. [¶] . . . [¶] (2) Efforts to provide services must include pursuit of any steps necessary to secure tribal membership for a child if the child is eligible for membership in a given tribe, as well as attempts to use the available resources of extended family members, the tribe, tribal and other Indian social service agencies, and individual Indian caregivers.”

News Profile of Elem Pomo Disenrollments/Banishments; Attorney Withdraws Representation

May 3, 2016May 3, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “Elem Pomo File Federal Suit Against Banishment.”

Here is the complaint in John et. al. v. Garcia et. al., 16-cv-02368 (N.D. Cali.)

An excerpt:

At this time it is unclear who will be defending the federal suit, Boland said. Last week, the Elem Colony Executive Committee’s longtime general counsel, Tony Cohen, publicly stated that he withdrew his representation in a blog post.

He said that in his 35 years practicing Indian law, “I have always worked to improve the lives of tribal members and have never helped tribal governments to be oppressors.”

ICWA Case out of Idaho Supreme Court

February 2, 2016Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

In this case, the trial court ordered the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to pay half of the cost of the child’s attorneys fees, sanctioned the Tribes for not turning over membership information in response to the adoptive couple’s motion to compel, barred the Tribes from presenting information on the child’s status as an Indian child, barred the Tribes from enrolling the child, and granted attorney’s fees request from the adoptive couple.

In 2015.

On August 12, 2015, the trial court granted the Does $863 in costs and $35,000 in attorney fees against the Tribes, and further granted Child’s counsel $6,056.25 in fees against the Tribes. The Tribes initially challenged the lower court’s discovery and sanction rulings, as well as its ultimate grant of petition for adoption and attorney fees. The Does cross-appealed, challenging the Tribes’ intervention in the matter. The Tribes have since dropped their challenge to the adoption and the Does correspondingly dropped their challenge to the Tribes’ intervention. What remains now is the Tribes’ assertion that the lower court’s discovery rulings, injunction, sanctions, grant of fees, and failure to find Child an Indian child were in error. The Does request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2(a) and Idaho Code section 12–121.

All of these were ultimately overturned by the Idaho Supreme Court in the decision.

Nooksack Tribe Countersues Proposed Disenrollees on Voting Rights

December 21, 2015December 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the pleading from Belmont v. Roberts (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Def Answer and Countrclm to Pl Complaint