Indian Child Welfare Court Monitor

Quarterly Report

January, February & March, 2002

I monitored 144 hearings this quarter.  Seven (5%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).   Sixteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

            Twenty-seven children were found to be children in need of protection and services.  Twenty-five of the CHIPS findings entered were the result of settlements; two resulted from defaults.  CHIPS jurisdiction over 13 children who had previously been reunified with a parent or prior legal custodian was dismissed by the Court.  A transfer of legal custody to a relative was ordered for six children.  One child was ordered into long-term foster care.  Twenty children who had been in placement were reunified this quarter with a parent or previous legal custodian.  The Court terminated the parental rights of one parent through a settlement.  Thirteen of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

            The Court granted three motions to transfer jurisdiction to tribal court.  One of those was conditioned upon the tribal court accepting the transfer.

                ICWA requires notice of the proceeding to be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parents or the Indian custodian, and the children’s tribe.  One hearing monitored violated the notice requirements of ICWA.

§         This was a TPR admit/deny hearing heard on February 4, 2002, before Judge Blaeser.  No formal notice by registered mail had been provided to the tribe.  The admit/deny hearing was continued and the matter was heard as a review hearing on the underlying CHIPS petition. 

ICWA gives parents the right to counsel in the proceeding.  The Court may also appoint counsel for a child.  There were three instances where counsel for a party failed to appear at a hearing.

§         This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on January 28, 2002, before Judge Blaeser.  Counsel for the mother failed to appear at the hearing.  The mother also was not present at the hearing. 

§         This was a CHIPS admit/deny hearing heard on February 19, 2002, before Judge Lefler.  Counsel for the mother failed to appear at the hearing. 

§         This was a TPR/TLC pretrial hearing heard on February 19, 2002, before Judge Blaeser.  Counsel for the child failed to appear at the hearing.  The child was present and at issue was whether the child should be reunified with her mother.  The Court ordered reunification in 30 days, if the mother continued to do well. 

            ICWA requires the testimony of a qualified expert witness to support an out of home placement.  The testimony must be provided within 90 days after an emergency removal.  The testimony is also required before the Court can order termination of parental rights.  There were three hearings where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement.  The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 22 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Two hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA. 

§         This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on January 14, 2002, before Judge Reilly.  Three children were in placement for six months with no expert testimony to support the placement.  The tribe had agreed to provide the testimony, but it had not been received. The testimony had still not been received by the next hearing heard on March 19, 2002.  

§         This was a TPR admit/deny hearing heard on February 28, 2002, before Judge Blaeser.  One child had been in placement 4 months with no expert testimony to support the placement.  Testimony had been provided by the tribe for two older siblings who were also in placement, but not for the third child. 

ICWA requires county agencies to use active efforts to provide remedial services and programs designed to prevent the breakup of the family.  One hearing violated the active efforts requirement of ICWA.

§         This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on January 14, 2002, before Judge Reilly.  One child had been placed in shelter away from her siblings so she could receive services, yet due to limitations with transportation the services were not happening.  At a follow-up hearing on January 17, 2002, the court ordered the Hennepin County CFASD worker to transport the child to the services until other placement and transportation arrangements could be made. 

            The court hearings involved a total of 258 children.  Thirty-four of the children were enrolled members and 219 were eligible for membership.  Five of the children were not eligible for enrollment; however, I do not know if these children are eligible for membership in their tribes.  The number of hearings, by the child’s tribal affiliation, is as follows:

The placements of the children were as follows:  77 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 78 children were placed with relatives; 47 children were placed in Indian foster care; three children were placed in non-Indian foster homes with the approval of the children’s tribe; one child was placed in a non-Indian foster home due to medical needs; 27 children were in emergency shelter placement; three were in group homes; 12 were in residential treatment centers; one child was ordered to remain in detention pending further hearings regarding placement; one child was in an independent living program; and the whereabouts of eight children were unknown at the time of the hearing. 

            Mothers of the children were present at 96 of the hearings.  There were a total of 33 fathers present at the hearings.  Guardians ad litem were present at 26 of the hearings.  Tribal representatives were present at 78 of the hearings.  Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 27 of the hearings.  Advocates from other community agencies were present at seven of the hearings.  There were 43 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor