This spring both Michigan and Oregon have changed their court rules to allow out of state attorneys to appear in ICWA cases on behalf of a tribe (Michigan and Oregon) or parent or Indian custodian (Oregon). Both waive the pro hac fees, and do not require the attorneys to associate with local counsel. Michigan’s rule, …
Here, by Pam Palmater. Canada’s numbers of Native children in care may be currently worse than pre-ICWA numbers in the United States (Task Force Four Report). The increasing number of First Nations children being placed into foster care in Canada is nothing short of a crisis. Although Indigenous children make up only seven per cent of …
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 may be concerns about practicing without finding local counsel or using the local “pro hac” …
Here. “What I saw were children being systemically removed from these communities. And I’d go to these communities, and there was no running water, and people would wonder why the kids weren’t clean, and I’d think maybe someone should do something about the water. We would see the multigenerational impacts of residential schools, and there …
From the docket: The writ of supersedeas was denied. Here. The application to transfer the case out of the court of appeals and directly to the California Supreme Court was also denied. Here. The underlying appeal against the placement order remains open in the California court of appeals. Here. What is a writ of supersedeas? …
Because of the recent media attention to ICWA, here’s a quick update and clarification of some legal details: ICWA has not been amended, updated, or changed. Ever. The same language that Congress passed in 1978 is the same language in effect today. In 2015 the Bureau of Indian Affairs updated the ICWA Guidelines for State Courts for …
After initially granting a TRO based on an ex parte motion, the Western District of Michigan denied the requested preliminary injunction. The underlying complaint arguing the transfer provisions of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (Michigan’s ICWA law) are unconstitutional. We are collecting documents in this case here. Tweet
Here. PDF copy here. From the end of the article: An Interior spokeswoman said Congress has determined it “is in the best interests of an Indian child to keep that child…with the child’s parents,” extended family and tribal community. Kathryn Fort, a lawyer with the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University, defends …
Not Native children specific, but an issue we’ve been talking about internally for some time. It’s a nice piece by Sarah Alverez with an interview with Vivek Sankaran. Here. Moss has not seen her grandsons since they were removed from her care and placed with another relative in a different city. She blames the system, …