Category Archives: Author: Kate E. Fort
The Arizona tribal-state judicial forum has submitted a proposed rule change to allow out of state ICWA practitioners to enter into cases without having to associate with local counsel or pay a fee. This proposed rule has a few more … Continue reading →
Here. ICWA enhances protective factors by requiring court and agency compliance in child welfare proceedings with two cutting-edge provisions: active efforts and placement preferences. Congress deliberately created a higher standard for Indian child welfare proceedings requiring state agencies to provide … Continue reading →
Late this afternoon the Court released an order list which granted the cert petition in U.S. v. Washington (the culverts case). Order list here. Previous briefs and posts here.
This is so exciting! Kristi Healing, (in-house at Stillaguamish) submitted this pro hac rule change proposal. Here is the proposed rule in PDF form: WA_Proposed_APR8 Submit comments in support, please! Unless otherwise noted, all comments should be submitted to the … Continue reading →
Here. As a project for Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Prof. Napoleon created the Indigenous Law Research Unit – her proudest work to date. It allows Indigenous communities to articulate and restate their law and legal processes – a model … Continue reading →
Here This is a follow up appeal related to an earlier Indian Custodian case. The Court determined the appellant was not an Indian Custodian, and then here tries to determine if he still had standing (he didn’t). Maybe useful for … Continue reading →
Here It’s not clear from the docket who requested this case be published from Nov. 29, but tribal attorneys should take note of the reasoning in the section regarding the tribal government’s ability to change ICWA’s placement preferences. This is … Continue reading →
Here The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a termination of parental rights decision under ICWA and WICWA using Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (finding abandonment/lack of continued custody by non-Indian father).
Here The child welfare case did not fall under ICWA because the child was not as a member or eligible for membership in the tribe, so the Court used the UCCJEA to determine jurisdiction.