I monitored 137 hearings this quarter. Eleven (8%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Nineteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Nine children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Eight of the CHIPS findings entered were the results of settlements; one resulted from a default finding. CHIPS jurisdiction over eight 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 seven children. Thirteen 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 by default findings. Nine of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

The Court granted one motion brought by a tribe to transfer jurisdiction to tribal court.

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 CHIPS admit/deny hearing scheduled for May 13, 2002, before Judge Reilly. No formal notice by registered mail had been provided to the tribe. The tribe had been given informal notice and was present at the hearing. The matter was continued without a hearing to afford opportunity for formal notice to the tribe.

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

This was a pretrial hearing on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on April 9, 2002, before Judge Lefler. The mother and father’s attorney was in a trial and was not present at the hearing. The mother was present and not in agreement with the transfer. The Court continued the pretrial.

This was an admit/deny hearing on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on April 10, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. The attorney for the father failed to appear for the hearing. The father was present and had spoken to his attorney by telephone, but did not know why the attorney was not present.

This was a truancy review hearing heard on May 8, 2002, before Referee Iijima. Counsel for the child failed to appear at the hearing. Counsel was present a week earlier when this hearing was set. The Court struck the hearing. There was nothing in the court file as to the reason for this hearing.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 20, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. The attorney for the father failed to appear for the hearing.

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 15 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Six hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was a TPR pretrial hearing heard on April 3, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. One child had been in placement for almost six months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe had provided testimony with respect to two other children, but had not provided for the third child. The testimony had still not been provided by the next hearing heard on May 16, 2002.

This was TPR pretrial heard on May 7, 2002, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement over six months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe was aware and supportive of the placement, but had not provided the actual testimony.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 4, 2002, before Judge Lefler. Two children had been in placement over six months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The children’s tribe had been in agreement with the placement all along. HCCFASD was recommending reunification. The children were reunified with their mother.

This was TPR pretrial hearing heard on June 17, 2002, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement four months with no expert testimony to support the placement.

This was an admit deny hearing on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on June 18, 2002, before Judge Lefler. Two children had been in placement over four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The children had been reunified with their mother, then removed again. There was no testimony for the current placement. The children’s tribe was present at the hearing and was in the process of obtaining the testimony.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 20, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. Three children had been in placement over four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. Mother requested return of the children due to the expert testimony violation. The Court continued the placement of the children based upon a report from the children’s therapist.

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

This was a CHIPS admit deny hearing heard on May 16, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. No written case plan had been provided to the parent or filed with the Court within 30 days of the placement. The parent was not included in the development of a case plan.

This was a CHIPS admit deny hearing heard on May 16, 2002, before Judge Reilly. No written case plan had been provided to the parent or filed with the Court within 30 days of the placement.

The court hearings involved a total of 197 children. Seventeen of the children were enrolled members and 180 were eligible for membership. The number of hearings,

by the child’s tribal affiliation, is as follows:

The placements of the children were as follows: 58 of the children were home under protective supervision; 69 children were placed with relatives; 45 children were placed in Indian foster care; three children were placed in non-Indian foster homes with the approval of the children’s tribe; 13 children were in emergency shelter placement; four children were in group homes; two children were in residential treatment centers; one child was in the hospital; one child was ordered to remain in detention pending further hearings regarding the placement; and the whereabouts of one child was unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 92 of the hearings. There were a total of 41 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 48 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 55 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 48 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 11 of the hearings. There were 37 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor