Indian Child Welfare Court Monitor , Quarterly Report

  April, May and June, 1999

Prepared by:   Paul T. Minehart , ICWA Court Monitor 

I  monitored 58 hearings this quarter.  Five (9%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).   Eleven of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

            Six children were found to be children in need of protection and services.  Each of the CHIPS finding entered was the result of a settlement.  CHIPS jurisdiction over five children was dismissed by the Court.  Those children were reunified with a parent or previous legal custodian.  A transfer of legal custody to a relative was ordered for five children.  The Court terminated the parental rights of five parents.  Four of the termination of parental rights were the result of defaults; one was the result of a settlement.  Three of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

            The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 16 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.  There were six hearings where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement.  The Court granted one tribe’s motion to intervene.

                One hearing monitored violated the notice requirements of ICWA.

·        This was an arraignment on a Educational Neglect petition heard on May 5, 1999, before Referee Falk.  The county had filed an amended petition.  The tribe had not received notice of the amended petition by registered mail.   The arraignment was continued to allow for service on the tribe. 

There was one instance where counsel for a party failed to appear.

·        This was a CHIPS arraignment heard on June 3, 1999, before Judge Lefler.  The attorney for the mother failed to appear.  The mother waived her right to an attorney for the purposes of the hearing.

            Two hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA. 

·        This was a CHIPS pretrial heard on April 19, 1999, before Judge Schellhas.  One child had been in placement almost four months with no expert testimony.  The child may be eligible through the father.  The tribe is waiting for the results of blood tests before it will provide the expert testimony.  

·        This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on June 3, 1999, before Judge Blaeser.  Two children have been in placement over 4 months without expert testimony to support the placement.  The county has attempted to get the testimony form the tribe, but has not been able to get a response.  The Court agreed to contact the tribe directly. 

            One hearing violated ICWA’s requirement to provide active efforts.

·        This was a CHIPS pretrial heard on April 20,1999, before Judge Leung.  One child had been in shelter four months.  The county has been looking, but has not been able to find a foster home for the child. 

The court hearings involved a total of 102 children.  Fifteen of the children were enrolled members and 82 were eligible for membership.  Five children were not eligible for membership.  The placements of the children were as follows:  32 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 24 children were placed with relatives; 31 children were placed in Indian foster care; one child was placed in a non-Indian foster home due to the child’s special needs; three children were placed in  non-Indian foster homes at the request of their mothers; seven children were in emergency shelter placement; four were in group homes; two children were in the juvenile detention center; and two infants were in the hospital at the time of the hearing. 

            Mothers of the children were present at 38 of the hearings.  There were a total of 17 fathers present at the hearings.  Guardians ad litem were present at 8 of the hearings.  Tribal representatives were present at 27 of the hearings.  Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 16 of the hearings.  Advocates from other community agencies were present at 9 of the hearings.  There were 13 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

           
The number of hearings, by the child’s tribal affiliation, is as follows:

There were no cases heard on the American Indian Community Collaborative (AICC) calendar this quarter.  This calendar is for cases where the family is accepting voluntary services from DCFS.  The court approves agreements for protective supervision of children remaining in the home.  The court also approves voluntary placements and certifies that the parents understand their rights under the voluntary placement agreement.