Here is the majority opinion in In re Peters/Brinton/Mathews and in In re Brinton (note the complete absence of any mention of ICWA or MIFPA)
And here is Judge Maldonado’s dissent, which is based entirely on ICWA/MIFPA and is 🔥:
Figuring out where the California Court of Appeal courts are on the initial inquiry duty when a child is removed from their home is about as easy as detangling a ball of Christmas lights. The Samantha F. case does a nice job of going through where everything is, and what courts have held. This issue is fairly specific to California, which has certain ICWA inquiry requirements in state law and court rules for the removal of any child from their home. The question at issue seems particularly frustrating, because certain California courts have held there is no duty for contacting a child’s extended family re. tribal citizenship if the child was removed from the home with a warrant. However, there is such a duty if they were removed from the home without a warrant. In reading the cases, it feels like there was an oversight in drafting the state laws rather than some kind of legislative intent to suss out. Regardless, this has been the top litigated issue in California ICWA cases for almost a year now. In fact, it was nearly a year ago I posted about this at length. Apparently filing is finally underway in the In re Ja. O. case now. Briefing in the other set of cases appears to be complete but oral argument has not yet been set.
As a reminder, comments for the ICWA AFCARS are due April 23. The Indian Law Clinic has developed a model comment for tribes to edit and use if they so wish. For a copy of the comment, please contact Cody Fowler, who has done the heavy lifting on this work, is an MSU grad and is helping out the Clinic for a few weeks! He can be contacted at:
fowler48@msu.edu
The proposed rule is here, as well as the link to submit comments:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/23/2024-03373/adoption-and-foster-care-analysis-and-reporting-system
As a reminder, this is a proposed rule to require nationwide data collection about ICWA children in foster care. We have never had nationwide data on ICWA cases, despite nearly ten years of active litigation to try to get the 2016 rule back, and many years of activism before that to get the 2016 rule.
I posted about this here, and comments are due April 23. The Indian Law Clinic should have a model comment available for tribes to use and edit by the end of next week.
This rule proposes to require states that receive federal funding for their foster care systems to gather accurate data on children in state courts who are subject to ICWA’s protections. This is done through the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) If you are a state worker, please encourage your state agency to comment in favor of this rule.
The proposed rule is here and is nearly identical to the one promulgated in 2016 (and then withdrawn by the Trump administration).
Daniel B. Rice has posted “Civil Duties and Public Change,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
What duties do Americans owe the state? Today, this question seems almost incomprehensible. Compulsions in the common interest are received coolly in our rights-obsessed culture, and the Supreme Court has never announced a framework for identifying the burdens of citizenship. Yet the concept of civic duty has played a central role in America’s constitutional tradition. From shoveling snow to repairing roads to fighting overseas, private individuals have long been forced to serve the public in ways menial and profound. Strangely, the discourse of obligation that legitimated numerous compulsions has largely faded from professional view. Judges’ mawkish tributes to liberty pay no heed to the magnitude of state-ordered servitude.
This collective forgetting has not eliminated the need to reason about civic duties, however. Courts continue to review compulsions grounded in contested visions of social obligation. In ruling on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, for example, the Supreme Court seriously impeded Congress from implementing novel conceptions of civic duty. This hostility closely tracks a leading scholarly account of civic duties as fixed by historical tradition. According to this narrative, living Americans are powerless to alter the basic obligations of citizenship.
This Article corrects the historical record by documenting how civic duties have developed over time. The evidence reveals that these obligations are constantly in motion; society has constructed, reshaped, and discarded them in decades-long struggles over the meaning of freedom. Put simply, the duties of citizenship are not fixed features of our constitutional order. They are necessarily—and properly—responsive to moral and cultural change. These findings undercut the Court’s use of rigid historical methodologies for reviewing laws that tacitly presume the existence of duties owed to the public. Most prominently, abortion restrictions compel women to continue their pregnancies in service of state-defined goals. And a panoramic view of civic duties casts new light on congressional efforts to preserve Indian tribes as flourishing governments. The federal Indian Child Welfare Act draws conceptual support from compulsory education and military conscription, both of which have long prioritized communal survival over individual choice.
If you are reading that title and thinking, “Kate, I am pretty sure you have posted this before. Like, a lot.” you are not wrong:
https://turtletalk.blog/?s=AFCARS
In fact, titles from prior posts include “Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Again.” and “Déjà vu All Over Again: AFCARS Comments Needed“
The short version of this 10 year saga is that at the end of the Obama administration, HHS promulgated a rule that would require Title IV-E agencies to collect information on ICWA. Before that could go into effect, the Trump administration withdrew it, and issued a different rule. After that happened, tribes and groups representing LGBTQ+ interests sued the feds to get the original rule back. Disclaimer, the MSU Indian Law Clinic represents the plaintiffs in that litigation along with Lambda Legal and Democracy Forward. Finally, the Biden administration has proposed a new rule that would go back to collecting ICWA data (this rule does not include sexual orientation or gender identity data elements). This means, yes, if you have worked in this area for the past 10 years, you may have submitted upwards of 5 sets of comments on this issue (I just checked, and we put our first one in 9 years ago, which was written by a 2L who is now a tribal leader).
The proposed regulation is here, as is the link to submit comments:
What does this mean? Well, dust off your prior comments regarding the history of ICWA, the importance of ICWA, the importance of data related to ICWA, the importance of ICWA data to the children, families, and tribes involved in the system, and review the latest proposal. The actual data reporting requirements begins on 13665. Then submit an updated version of your comments in support of collecting ICWA data before April 23, 2024.
At a very first glance, this proposed rule appears to include a lot of important data questions that would inform practice and help with compliance, and limit the data collection to “state” Title IV-E agencies. The proposed rule appears marginally more limited than the original 2016 rule, but more expansive than the 2020 rule, though I will need to compare them more closely.
Louis LaRose, former chair of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, has walked on. News profile here.
As chairman, Mr. LaRose testified on behalf of the bill that would become the Indian Child Welfare Act. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield quoted extensively from Louis’s testimony. Footnote 25 reads:
In large part, the concerns that emerged during the congressional hearings on the ICWA were based on studies showing recurring developmental problems encountered during adolescence by Indian children raised in a white environment. See n. 1, supra.See also 1977 Hearings at 114 (statement of American Academy of Child Psychiatry); S.Rep. No. 95-597, p. 43 (1977) (hereinafter Senate Report). More generally, placements in non-Indian homes were seen as “depriving the child of his or her tribal and cultural heritage.” Id. at 45; see also 124 Cong.Rec. 38102-38103 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Lagomarsino). The Senate Report on the ICWA incorporates the testimony in this sense of Louis La Rose, chairman of the Winnebago Tribe, before the American Indian Policy Review Commission:”I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption courts, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family that has a value system that is A-1 in the State of Nebraska and that child reaches 16 or 17, he is a little brown child residing in a white community, and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person, and I think . . . they destroy him.”Senate Report at 43. Thus, the conclusion seems justified that, as one state court has put it, “[t]he Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child’s best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected.” In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz., at 204, 635 P.2d at 189.
Thanks to Lucas LaRose.
I am very excited about this. It’s the first step in loosening up the restrictions on HHS money that needs to be flowing to tribes for social service and justice systems.
The new integration comes under Public Law 102-477 (P.L. 102-477). Specifically, ACF recommended, and BIA approved for Citizen Potawatomi Nation, to integrate its child welfare services grants with several other federal grants for employment, training and related services into a single program and budget to address Tribal priorities.
“Public Law 102-477 has long been critical legislation for ACF to promote Tribal sovereignty, and expansion to include new ACF programs helps meet our nation-to-nation responsibilities,” said ACF Acting Assistant Secretary Jeff Hild. “The feedback we hear from our Tribal advisory committee and Tribal leaders is Tribes know best how to serve their citizens, and 477 is one way to do this.”
Under P.L. 102-477, Tribes can integrate their federal employment, training and related services from across the federal government to improve the effectiveness of those services. Tribes wishing to integrate a program into a 477 plan must first submit a proposed plan to DOI that identifies the programs to be integrated and consolidated. Once a program is included in such a plan, Tribes have very broad flexibility in use of those funds.
Here. Description:
A non-Native woman in Alaska refuses to abide by a tribal court order to turn an Alaska Native foster child over to the girl’s family members. It’s a blatant disregard of tribal sovereignty even after a notable re-affirmation of the Indian Child Welfare Act by the U.S. Supreme Court. The woman took custody of the child, named Chanel, at the request of the girl’s father, right before he was convicted of murdering Chanel’s mother during a domestic dispute. We’ll look at that case, as well as efforts to bolster ICWA compliance elsewhere.
Case materials here.
This extension is regarding the letter in this post.
The Administration (DOI, HHS, and DOJ) are asking for input on the following:
What additional supports would Tribal leaders find helpful to build their Tribe’s capacity to exercise their rights and responsibilities under ICWA?
Are there specific supports you believe the federal government could provide to help state courts and child welfare agencies meet their obligations under ICW A?
In your experience, are there specific aspects or requirements of ICWA where state courts and agencies need to build greater understanding or capacity?
Are there existing State-Tribe collaborative partnerships or processes that you believe have helped support effective implementation ofICWA?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.