Tag Archives: MIFPA
Here is the opinion in In re Detmer/Beaudry. The question of whether an involuntary removal of a child triggers ICWA if the child is not placed in “foster home or institution or home of a guardian or conservator” 25 U.S.C. 1903(1)(i) is … Continue reading →
Here is the opinion. After two years, the Minnesota federal district court dismissed the voluntary adoption case challenging the provisions of the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) allowing for notice and intervention of a child’s tribe in the proceedings. … Continue reading →
Unreported Notice case (parent challenge, no indication child was eligible for tribal citizenship): In re Applewhiate Reported case: In re JJW_Opinion The MSU Indian Law Clinic/ICWA Appellate Project co-authored the Tribe’s brief in In re JJW.
Here. From the Michigan Court Improvement Program. New and updated for 2017! Now with MIFPA and the Regulations!
Announcement here. All of the comments submitted on this rule were in support of it–I’m pretty sure I thanked everyone personally, but thank you again to everyone who did.
Proposed Court Rule in Michigan to Waive Pro Hac Fees and Other Limits for Out of State Tribal ICWA Attorneys
Here. In ICWA cases, the tribe has a right of intervention in whatever state court is hearing the case of the tribal child. While it is true that the “tribal representative” does not have to be attorneys, when they are attorneys, there … Continue reading →
Here. Given the multiple references in the record to possible Cherokee heritage, the DHHS had adequate information to make an “initial determination” that C.J. “may be a member” of the Cherokee tribe, implicating a duty to “exercise due diligence to … Continue reading →
Here. This is the federal case challenging the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Does’ complaint, but only against the government defendants. The Court will dismiss Commissioner Moose from the case … Continue reading →
Here. As set forth above, the relevant provisions of the ICWA and the MIFPA are essentially identical; that is, each requires proof by “clear and convincing evidence” to remove an Indian child and place him or her into foster care, … Continue reading →