I monitored 141 hearings this quarter. Twelve hearings (9%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Twelve of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Twenty-three children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Nineteen of the CHIPS findings entered were the result of settlements; four CHIPS findings resulted from defaults. Sixteen children who had been in placement were reunified this quarter with a parent or previous legal custodian. CHIPS jurisdiction over four children was dismissed by the Court. A transfer of legal custody to a relative was ordered for three children. Five children were ordered into long-term foster care. The Court terminated the parental rights of 11 parents. Three terminations of parental rights were the result of settlements; eight resulted from defaults. Fifteen of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

The Court granted three motions brought by tribes to intervene. 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. Three hearings monitored violated the notice requirements of ICWA.

This was an arraignment on a long-term foster care petition heard on July 11, 2000, before Judge Lefler. DCFS relied upon notice by publication to obtain a default finding against the mother.

This was a TPR trial heard on July 12, 2000, before Judge Reilly. The child was potentially eligible in more than one tribe, however DCFS provided formal notice of the TPR petition to only one of the tribes. The arraignment was continued.

This was a hearing pursuant to an Order for Immediate Custody heard on September 7, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Neither the tribe, nor mother’s counsel, were notified of the hearing. However, both the tribal

representative and mother’s attorney were present in the courthouse at the time of the hearing and were able to appear at the hearing.

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

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on August 15, 2000, before Judge Lefer. The attorney for the father failed to appear. It was uncertain if the attorney had actual notice of the hearing. The father agreed to go forward with the hearing without his attorney.

This was a truancy review hearing heard on August 31, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the child failed to appear for the hearing. The attorney was present at the last hearing when this hearing date was set. The child agreed to go forward with the hearing without her attorney present.

This was a permanency arraignment in a CHIPS proceeding heard on September 12, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. The attorney for the child failed to appear. The matter was continued without a hearing because permanency pleadings had not been served on the mother who was not present, nor had the pleadings been filed with the court.

This was state ward review hearing heard on September 14, 2000, before Judge Schellhas. The attorney for the child failed to appear. The child agreed to go forward with the hearing without his attorney present.

This was an arraignment on a long-term foster care petition. The attorney for the child failed to appear. The attorney had the wrong date for the hearing on his calendar. The arraignment was continued.

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 seven hearings where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement. The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 27 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Four hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was an arraignment on a long-term foster care petition heard on July 11, 2000, before Judge Lefler. Two children had been in placement almost five months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe had told the county attorney that it would send an affidavit of expert testimony, but no testimony has been received as yet.

This was a CHIPS settlement heard on August 1, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children were in placement over five months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The children’s tribe had not determined the eligibility of the children.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on September 20, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Five children had been in placement just over 90 days without expert testimony to support the placement. An affidavit of expert testimony was filed with the Court on September 25, 2000.

This was an arraignment on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on September 27, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The child had been in placement for eight months with no expert testimony to support the placement.

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 scheduled for August 28, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The DCFS social worker failed to appear for the hearing. The matter was continued without a hearing.

The court hearings involved a total of 233 children. Forty-three of the children were enrolled members and 190 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: 41 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 70 children were placed with relatives; 69 children were placed in Indian foster care; nine children were placed in non-Indian foster homes with the approval of the children’s tribe; three children were placed in non-Indian foster homes due to special medical needs; two children were placed in a non-Indian foster home at the request of their mother; 20 children were in emergency shelter placement; two were in group homes; eight were in residential treatment centers; three children were ordered to remain in detention pending further hearings regarding their placement; and the whereabouts of six children were unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 72 of the hearings. There were a total of 32 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 26 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 69 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 25 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 11 of the hearings. There were 39 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor