html5-img
1 / 46

The Indian Child Welfare Act: History, Purpose and Application

The Indian Child Welfare Act: History, Purpose and Application. Attorney Paul Stenzel April 23, 2018 Marquette Law School. Part I: History and Purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act Part II: Application of the Act Part III: Major Cases Part IV: Questions & Issues. History & Purpose.

tsophia
Télécharger la présentation

The Indian Child Welfare Act: History, Purpose and Application

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Indian Child Welfare Act:History, Purpose and Application Attorney Paul Stenzel April 23, 2018 Marquette Law School

  2. Part I: History and Purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act • Part II: Application of the Act • Part III: Major Cases • Part IV: Questions & Issues

  3. History & Purpose • From the late 19th century to the mid 1970s, Indian families were subjected to various forces which negatively impacted the family unit: • Allotment Act • Assimilation • Termination

  4. Carlisle Indian School ca. 1900

  5. History & Purpose By the 1960s there was a recognition that Indian families were being broken apart at an alarming rate due to state social service departments removing children and placing them in non-Indian homes.

  6. History & Purpose Studies in 1969 and 1974 showed that 25% to 35% of all Indian children had been separated from their families and placed in adoptive families, foster care, or institutions.

  7. History & Purpose The same studies found that in the State of Minnesota one in eight Indian children under the age of 18 was in an adoptive home, and during 1971-1972 nearly one in every four infants under one year of age was placed for adoption.

  8. History & Purpose In Wisconsin the risk of being separated from their children was 1,600% greater for Indians.

  9. History & Purpose 90% of the Indian placements were in non-Indian homes.

  10. History & Purpose In South Dakota, 40 percent of all adoptions by the State were of Indian children, yet they made up only 7% of the population.

  11. History & Purpose Chairman Calvin Isaac, at ICWA Senate Hearings: “One of the most serious failings of the present system is that Indian children are removed from the custody of their natural parents by nontribal government authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing.”

  12. History & Purpose Chief Isaac (cont’d): “Many of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at best ignorant of our cultural values, and at worst contemptful of the Indian way and convinced that removal, usually to a non-Indian household or institution, can only benefit an Indian child.”

  13. History & Purpose Chief Isaac: “Culturally, the chances of Indian survival are significantly reduced if our children, the only real means for the transmission of the tribal heritage, are to be raised in non-Indian homes and denied exposure to the ways of their People.”

  14. History & Purpose The congressional hearings demonstrated the tremendous harm that had come to Indian families, tribes and children. The ICWA was passed to prevent it from happening in the future.

  15. History & Purpose In addition, it is clear that Congress' concern over the placement of Indian children in non-Indian homes was based in part on evidence of the detrimental impact on the children themselves of such placements outside their culture.… Mississippi Choctaw Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 49-50 (1989)

  16. History & Purpose "[r]emoval of Indian children from their cultural setting seriously impacts a long-term tribal survival and has damaging social and psychological impact on many individual Indian children." Senate Report, at 52. Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 51.

  17. History & Purpose “Probably in no area is it more important that tribal sovereignty be respected than in an area as socially and culturally determinative as family relationships.” Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 34 (quoting, Chief Isaac, hearings in front of the Lands of the House Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., at 193 (1978)).

  18. History & Purpose • Without ICWA, the best interest of the child standard, as defined by the mainstream culture, fails to take into account Tribes’ unique culture. • The ICWA, by providing for intervention and an order of placement preferences, essentially added new elements to the best interest of the child standard which recognize tribal interests.

  19. Part II: Application of the Act What types of actions does the Act apply to? • State court • CHIPs (or equivalent) • TPR • Status crimes for juveniles • Out of home placements where parents cannot have the child back on demand NOT: • Divorces • Other JD proceedings involving “crimes”

  20. Application of the Act • Act applies to proceeding where grandparents are seeking guardianship. In re Guardianship of J.C.D., 2004 S.D. 96, 686 N.W.2d 647, (S.D. 08/25/2004) • A “child custody proceeding” includes intra-familial disputes between the parents and maternal grandmother who is the current guardian of the children. In re A.K.H., 502 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 1993).

  21. Application of the Act The Act defines and “Indian child” as either: • A member of a federally recognized Indian tribe; OR • Eligible for membership and is the biological child of a member of a Tribe.

  22. Application of the Act Substantive provisions: • Indian tribes have exclusive jurisdiction for cases arising on the Reservation.

  23. Application of the Act For cases arising off the reservation, the Tribe or a parent can seek to have the case transferred to Tribal court subject to exceptions: • Good cause • Objection by parent • Declination by tribal court (or tribe does not have a tribal court).

  24. Application of the Act Wisconsin Statute on “Good cause”: • If the child is 12 or older and objects • Tribal court too inconvenient for evidence, etc. • The Tribe asks for transfer after 6 months (with safe harbor exception).

  25. Application of the Act The Tribe, rather than seeking transfer, can intervene at any time and participate in proceedings as a party.

  26. Application of the Act In any involuntary state court proceeding, the Tribe must be given notice of the action under specific procedures.

  27. Application of the Act The party bringing the action must show that “active efforts” have been made to prevent the break up of the Indian family.

  28. Application of the Act Under Wisconsin law, active efforts defined to include specific steps: • Keeping the tribe involved • Involving extended family • Comprehensive assessment of family • Community resources offered Many others; listed in Wis. Stat. 48.028(4)(g)

  29. Application of the Act Out of home placement may only occur if the following are met: • State shows by C&C evidence • that continued custody by parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child • Qualified expert witness testimony

  30. Application of the Act TPR may not be ordered without: • BRD • That continued custody by parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage • Qualified expert witness testimony required

  31. QEW Federal Act did not define QEW. Under WI statute, it means a person who is any of the following (2 of 4 listed): • 1. A member of the Indian child's tribe recognized by the Indian child's tribal community as knowledgeable regarding the tribe's customs relating to family organization or child-rearing practices. • 2. A member of another tribe who is knowledgeable regarding the customs of the Indian child's tribe relating to family organization or child-rearing practices. • State law also adds QEW order of preference

  32. Application of the Act Voluntary placements / TPRs must be: • executed in writing and • recorded before a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction • accompanied by the presiding judge's certificate that the terms and consequences of the consent were fully explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian.

  33. Application of the Act 25 USC 1913(a) (cont’d) Any consent given prior to, or within ten days after, birth of the Indian child shall not be valid.

  34. Application of the Act 25 USC § 1914 creates a cause of action for a tribe to invalidate a proceeding allegedly in violation of 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.

  35. Application of the Act Foster care or pre-adoptive placement order of preference • a member of the Indian child's extended family; • a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; • an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; or • an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs.

  36. Application of the Act Adoptive placement order of preference: (1) a member of the child's extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child's tribe; or (3) other Indian families.

  37. Application of the Act The Indian child’s tribe may determine it’s own placement order of preference which must be honored by the Court.

  38. Application of the Act 25 USC § 1915(c) (cont’d) Where appropriate, the preference of the Indian child or parent shall be considered: Provided, That where a consenting parent evidences a desire for anonymity, the court or agency shall give weight to such desire in applying the preferences.

  39. Application of the Act • The Tribe's right to enforce statutory preference for adoptive placement of Indian children prevailed over parent statutorily recognized interest in anonymity. In re Baby Girl Doe, 262 Mont. 380, 865 P.2d 1090 (1993).

  40. Major cases • Mississippi Choctaw v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) – U.S. Supreme Court reversed an adoption where the parents were residing on the Reservation but left to have the child and place it for private adoption in an effort to avoid the Act.

  41. Major Cases Holyfield discussion • Other facts • Group rights v. individual • Dissent • Rest of the story

  42. Major cases • Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. _____ , 133 S. Ct. 2552, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729 (2013). • U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Act did not apply where the Indian father had never had custody or care of the child.

  43. Major Cases • Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, Difficult facts • Existing Indian Family doctrine • What behavior has been incentivized? • Rest of the story

  44. OTHER TOPICS • Applying the Act in practice • Current efforts to invalidate the Act • Questions

  45. Additional resources • www.nicwa.org (National Indian Child Welfare Association) • The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, B.J. Jones, Family Law Section, ABA • www.narf.org/icwa • ICWA regulations: 81 FRE 38864 (June 14, 2016); 25 CFR part 23. • Guidelines for Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, December 2016. • https://dcf.Wisconsin.gov/wicwa

More Related