I monitored 111 hearings this quarter. Ten (9%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Seventeen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Sixteen children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Twelve of the CHIPS findings entered were the result of settlements; four of the CHIPS findings were by default. CHIPS jurisdiction over five 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. Two children were ordered into long-term foster care. Nine children who had been in placement were reunified with a parent or previous legal custodian this quarter. The Court terminated the parental rights of two parents. One termination of parental rights was the result of a settlement; one resulted from a default. Six of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

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 arraignment heard on April 12, 2000, before Judge Lefler. DCFS relied upon notice by publication to obtain a default termination finding against the mother.

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

· This was an arraignment on an educational neglect petition heard on June 6, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the child failed to appear. An attorney had been appointed for the child at an earlier hearing, but no one was present to represent the child. The child did not want to go forward without an attorney. The Court continued the matter to allow for an attorney to be present for the child.

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 a termination of parental rights. There was one hearing where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement. The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 15 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Seven hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on May 10, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement 4 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe needed the birth date of the children’s maternal grandfather in order to determine whether the children are eligible for membership. None of the parties had been able to determine the grandfather’s birth date.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on May 15, 2000, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement 5 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe had been involved in the case, but no expert testimony had been provided to the Court. An affidavit from the tribe providing the expert testimony was filed with the Court on June 8, 2000.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on May 15, 2000, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement 6 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe has responded that the child is eligible for membership, yet no expert testimony has been provided to the Court.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on May 15, 2000, before Judge Lefler. Three children had been in placement 4 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe has been involved on the case, but the required testimony has not been provided to the Court.

· This was a truancy review hearing heard on May 23, 2000, before Judge Schellhas. The Court accepted, over the objection of the parent and the objection of the child, an affidavit to support Hennepin County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) request for out of home placement of the child. Thus the parent was prohibited from having the right to cross-examine the expert witness as to the information the expert opinion was based upon. The Court ordered the placement of the child.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on May 30, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. One child had been in placement 6 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. Initially the tribe had identified the child as not being eligible for membership, but revised its determination based upon the child’s sibling relationship. The Court requested the testimony to be provided by the next hearing.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 6, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement just over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The children had been removed from their mother’s care and DCFS provided expert testimony to support this removal. However, the children were then returned to their mother, and subsequently removed again. There has been no testimony to support the second removal.

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 June 20, 2000, before Judge Reilly. DCFS decided not to bring the child from the RTC to court for the hearing. The child’s attorney was not consulted in the decision, and expected the child to be at the hearing. In addition, the mother had not had a visit arranged with her child for over 2 months.

The court hearings involved a total of 190 children. Forty-six of the children were enrolled members and 142 were eligible for membership. Two 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: 31 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 48 children were placed with relatives; 52 children were placed in Indian foster care; 9 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 at the request of the mother; one child was placed in a non-Indian foster home at the request of the child and with the tribe’s agreement; one child was placed in a non-Indian foster home due to special medical needs with the tribe’s agreement; two children who were initially placed in a non-Indian foster home because DCFS thought the case was a non-ICWA case are now being transitioned into a relative’s home; 18 children were in emergency shelter placement; six were in group homes; 12 were in residential treatment centers; two children were in the hospital; three children were held in detention pending further hearings regarding their placement; and the whereabouts of four children were unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 46 of the hearings. There were a total of 20 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 19 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 33 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 22 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 15 of the hearings. There were 39 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor