I monitored 151 hearings this quarter. Five (3%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Nineteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Eleven children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Seven of the CHIPS findings entered were the results of settlements; three resulted from defaults. CHIPS jurisdiction over nine 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 eighteen children. One child was ordered into long-term foster care. 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 five parents. Two terminations of parental rights were the result of settlements; two findings resulted from contested trials; and one finding resulted from a default. Nine of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

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

ICWA gives parents the right to counsel in the proceeding. An unwed father who has acknowledged his paternity meets the definition of parent under ICWA. Acknowledged is defined in the DHS Social Services Manual as any action taken by a man to hold himself out as the father of the child. The Court may also appoint counsel for a child. One hearing violated the right to counsel provision.

This was a first appearance on a TPR petition. The father who was present and stated he was the father was not appointed an attorney until he provided a signed Recognition of Parentage form.

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

Four hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on April 22, 2003, before Judge Lefler. An order finding the child in need of protection and services had been entered without expert testimony to support the placement of the child and the order. The Court withdrew the order and stayed the finding pending expert testimony.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on April 22, 2003, before Judge Reilly. One child had been in placement four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The child was originally thought to be not eligible for membership, but now the tribe is recognizing the child. Court found exigent circumstances to continue the placement without the expert testimony since the tribe only determined eligibility one month earlier. At a subsequent hearing heard on June 18, 2003, the child had now been in placement six months with no expert witness testimony to support the placement. The tribe was present at the hearing and supportive of the continued placement.

This was a CHIPS trial heard on May 27, 2003, before Judge Lefler. One child had been in placement four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. Mother did not have housing and was not in a position to have the child returned to her. The Court found there was not adequate compliance with the case plan by the mother to allow for reunification. The Court continued the placement of the child. Expert testimony was provided to the court at a later hearing heard on June 23, 2003.

The court hearings involved a total of 238 children. Twenty-five of the children were enrolled members and 213 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: fifty-three of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; seventy-six children were placed with relatives; seventy-three children were placed in Indian foster care; five children were placed in non-Indian foster homes with the approval of the children’s tribe; two children were placed in a non-Indian foster home at the request of a parent; nine children were in emergency shelter placement; six were in group homes; seven were in residential treatment centers; and the whereabouts of seven children were unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at ninety-six of the hearings. There were a total of fifty fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 112 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at sixty-six of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at forty-three of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at five of the hearings. There were forty-three hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor