I monitored 116 hearings this quarter. Twelve (10%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Eleven of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Twenty-three children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Each of the CHIPS findings entered was the result of a settlement. CHIPS jurisdiction over 2 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 18 children. Fifteen 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 way of a settlement. Fifteen of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

The Court granted one motion brought by a tribe to intervene.

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

This was an admit/deny hearing on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on July 10, 2001, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the child failed to appear. The child’s placement was not at issue; however, the Court did address visitation issues involving the child.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on July 10, 2001, before Judge Lefler. Counsel for the mother failed to appear. Mother agreed to go forward without her attorney.

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

Six hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was a CHIPS pretrial hearing heard on July 12, 2001, before Judge Reilly. One child had been in placement over 5 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The matter was settled. The Court made a CHIPS finding, but stayed adjudication until the expert testimony was received.

This was a CHIPS pretrial hearing heard on July 19, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. One child had been in placement over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The Court continued the placement. At a subsequent hearing, however, the Court reunified the child with his mother.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on August 16, 2001, before Judge Lefer. Six children had been in placement over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribal representative was present at the hearing and the tribe was in the process of providing the testimony by affidavit.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on August 30, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. The child had been in placement over 90 days without the expert testimony to support the placement. The Court found extraordinary circumstances to continue the placement beyond 90 days without the testimony based upon mother being unable to be reunified due to her incarceration, and the tribal representative being unfamiliar with the case because she was new to her position with the tribe. The mother was not objecting to the continued placement. An affidavit of expert testimony was filed with the Court on September 21, 2001.

This was a CHIPS pretrial hearing heard on September 11, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The Court continued the placement of the children.

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on September 19, 2001, before Judge Lefer. Three children had been in placement nine months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The children had been removed from the home for one month, returned for just under three months, and removed again. There had been no expert testimony provided after the second removal of the children. The tribal representative was present and stated the tribe supported continued placement.

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 state ward review hearing heard on July 16, 2001, before Judge Reilly. The Hennepin County Children, Adult, and Family Services Department (CAFSD) worker had not heard from the relatives where the children are placed and had not been out to visit them.

This was a long term foster care review hearing heard on August 20, 2001, before Judge Reilly. At the last hearing the CAFSD worker was ordered to have the child’s therapist’s report prior to the hearing. No report was provided. The CAFSD worker was not present at the hearing, nor was the child. The therapist’s reports were provided subsequent to the hearing.

ICWA requires placement of a child in the least restrictive setting which most approximates a family. ICWA specifies preferences for the 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. Two hearings violated these placement provisions of ICWA.

This was a truancy review hearing heard on August 16, 2001, before Judge Reilly. The tribe and the child’s grandmother were requesting placement of the child with the grandmother who lives out of the Twin Cities. The Court ordered the child placed in a non-Indian foster home, if the placement checked out, located in the Twin Cities so the child’s IDT treatment would not be disrupted. The Court made no finding of good cause to not follow the placement preferences.

This was a CHIPS admit/deny hearing heard on August 20, 2001, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been placed in a non-Indian foster home without consultation with the tribe. The mother stated in court she wanted her children placed in a non-Indian home.

The court hearings involved a total of 205 children. Twenty-eight of the children were enrolled members and 177 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: 47 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 80 children were placed with relatives; 48 children were placed in Indian foster care; one child was placed a non-Indian foster home due to medical needs with the approval of the child’s tribe; three children were placed in a non-Indian foster home at the request of the mother; one child was placed in a non-Indian foster home without tribal or parental support for the placement; eight children were in emergency shelter placement; five 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 one child was unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 70 of the hearings. There were a total of 31 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 20 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 61 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 16 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at ten of the hearings. There were 44 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor