I monitored 97 hearings this quarter. Nine (9%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Eighteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Twenty-two children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Ten of the CHIPS findings entered resulted from settlements; 12 resulted from defaults. CHIPS jurisdiction over six 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 8 children. Five children who had been in placement were reunified this quarter with a parent or previous legal custodian. The Court terminated the parental rights of two parents. Both terminations of parental rights were the result of settlements. Seven 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 pretrial hearing heard on June 13, 2001, before Judge Lefler. It was unclear whether the tribal notice included all of the information the county had regarding the family lineage. The Court ordered the County to resubmit the notice.

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 four hearings where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement. The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 10 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Five hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was CHIPS review heard on April 9, 2001, before Judge Lefler. Two children had been in placement six months with no expert testimony to

support the placement. The tribe had responded in writing that the children were eligible for membership; however, the tribal representative had subsequently verbally said the children were not eligible. Hennepin County Children, Family and Adult Services Department (HCCFASD) was attempting to clarify the tribe’s position. The tribe’s position had not been verified in writing by the next hearing held on June 11, 2001.

This was CHIPS review hearing heard on April 10, 2001, before Judge Reilly. One child had been in placement five months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe has verbally agreed to the placement, but no testimony has been provided. An affidavit of expert testimony from the tribe was filed with the Court on April 27, 2001.

This was a CHIPS pretrial heard on May 24, 2001, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement just over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe was determining the child’s eligibility for membership.

This was a motion for reunification of a child brought by the child’s mother. The matter was heard on May 29, 2001, before Judge Lefler. The child had been in placement over 90 days without expert testimony to support the placement. The mother further argued that the circumstances which necessitated the emergency removal no longer existed. Expert testimony to support the placement was presented to the Court at this hearing. The Court continued the placement concluding that the child would be in imminent harm or danger if returned to the parent.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 13, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. The child had been in placement seven months, except for one week when a failed reunification was attempted, with no expert testimony to support the placement. The Court continued the placement asking the HCCFASD to obtain the testimony.

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 an emergency placement hearing heard on June 11, 2001, before Judge Reilly. The HCCFASD worker failed to appear for the hearing. At issue was the placement of the child. The Court ordered the child into a shelter placement.

ICWA requires placement of a child in the least restrictive setting which most approximates a family, and dictates preferences for placement of a child. ICWA also provides that when a child is removed from one foster care placement and placed in another placement the provisions of ICWA apply to the change in placement. One hearing violated the placement provisions of ICWA.

This was a voluntary TPR hearing heard on April 30, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. One child had been moved to a non-Indian foster home without approval of the tribe. The mother did not want her child in a non-Indian home. The HCCFASD worker thought that the home was Indian, but could not verify this. The Court ordered HCCFASD to verify the Indian status of the home and, if the home was not an Indian home, to look for an Indian home.

One other hearing is worth mentioning here.

This was a CHIPS admit deny hearing heard on June 5, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. The mother brought a motion to dismiss the petition based upon an Indian custodian having custody of the baby and the county failing to recognize the status of the Indian custodian. The Court took the matter under advisement.

The court hearings involved a total of 188 children. Nineteen of the children were enrolled members and 167 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: 50 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 56 children were placed with relatives; 44 children were placed in Indian foster care; two 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 because the tribe originally responded that the child was not eligible for membership; one child was placed in a non-Indian home without tribal approval or good cause to place outside the placement preferences; 23 children were in emergency shelter placement; two were in group homes; five were in residential treatment centers; one child was ordered to remain in detention pending further hearings regarding his placement; one child was in the hospital; and the whereabouts of one child was unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 58 of the hearings. There were a total of 19 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 12 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 47 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 19 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 9 of the hearings. There were 35 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor