The hearings monitored during the 2000 calendar year involved a total of 505 children. Eighty-seven of the children were enrolled and 415 were eligible for membership. Three of the children were not eligible for enrollment; however, I do not know how many of these children were eligible for membership in their tribes. The placements of the children, as of December 31, 2000, were as follows: 131 of the children were at home; 160 children were placed with relatives; 116 were placed in Indian foster care; 22 children were placed in non-Indian foster homes; 28 children were in emergency shelter placement; 22 were in residential treatment facilities; 11 were in group homes; one child was in detention pending further placement; and the whereabouts of 14 children were unknown.

I monitored 149 hearings this quarter. Seventeen (11%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Eighteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings. Twelve of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

Fifteen children were found to be children in need of protection and services. Twelve of the CHIPS findings entered were the results of settlements; three resulted from default findings. Seventeen children who had been in placement were reunified this quarter with a parent or previous legal custodian. CHIPS jurisdiction over 12 children was dismissed by the Court after reunification with a parent or previous legal custodian. 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 six parents. Three terminations of parental rights were the result of settlements; three resulted from defaults.

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

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. Two hearings monitored violated the notice requirements of ICWA.

· This was a TPR arraignment heard on November 7, 2000, before Judge Lefler. DCFS relied upon notice by publication to obtain a default termination finding against a father.

· This was a hold hearing heard on December 6, 2000, before Judge Reilly. The petition listed the mother’s tribe as a participant in the proceedings, but did not list the father’s tribe as a participant. Thus, the father’s tribe was not given notice of the hearing.

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

· This was a CHIPS pretrial heard on October 10, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the father failed to appear. The father was present and waived his right to an attorney for the purposes of this hearing.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing scheduled for November 13, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the father failed to appear. The father was present. The matter was continued without a hearing.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on December 14, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. No attorney for the child appeared at this hearing despite an attorney being appointed for the child at the last hearing. The child was present 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 four hearings where live testimony was presented to fulfill the expert witness requirement. The County Attorney’s office filed with the Court 21 affidavits from tribal representatives to satisfy the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

Nine hearings violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

· This was a truancy review hearing heard on October 28, 2000, before Judge Karasov. The Court ordered the child into placement at St. Croix Camp with no expert testimony to support the placement.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on November 2, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Three children had been in placement for five months with no expert testimony to support the placement. An affidavit of expert testimony was filed with the Court on December 28, 2000.

· This was a TPR arraignment heard on November 13, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement over 10 months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe initially determined the children were not eligible for membership, however, the tribe’s membership requirements have changed and the tribe is again determining membership under the new guidelines. At a review hearing held on December 14, 2000, the county had not yet heard from the tribe regarding its determination of the children’s eligibility for membership.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on November 13, 2000, before Judge Reilly. The child had been in placement over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe had verbally responded that it would provide the testimony, but no testimony has been provided to date.

· This was an arraignment on a transfer of legal custody petition heard on November 13, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The child had been in placement just over 90 days with no expert testimony to support the placement.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on November 15, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement almost nine months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The mother requested to have the children returned based upon the lack of expert testimony. The Court continued the placement of the children.

· This was a long-term foster care review hearing heard on December 4, 2000, before Judge Lefler. The child had been in placement eight months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The long-term foster care had been stayed at the previous hearing held November 6, 2000, pending receipt of the expert testimony.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on December 4, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. Two children had been in placement four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. A tribal representative was present at the hearing and indicated that the testimony would be provided soon.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on December 11, 2000, before Judge Lefler. Two children had been in placement over four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The tribe was still attempting to establish the children’s eligibility for membership.

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

active efforts requirement of ICWA.

· This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on November 13, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. The DCFS worker had left her position on November 2, 2000, and no new worker had been assigned to the case.

· This was a long-term foster care review hearing heard on November 27, 2000, before Judge Schellhas. The child was placed in a foster home in February, 2000. In November, child protection received a report of the neglect of the child by the foster parent. Both the child’s school and the child’s therapist had concerns about the foster parent not responding to phone calls concerning the child and not providing transportation for the child. The Court was concerned about the amount of actual contact the DCFS worker had been having with the child while the child was in the placement. The Court ordered the DCFS worker to report to the court every time the worker talked to the child.

· This was a long-term foster care review hearing heard on December 4, 2000, before Judge Blaeser. DCFS was recommending dismissal of the case. However, the Department had not had contact with the child for approximately four months and therefore had not talked with the child about the impact the recommendation for dismissal would have on the child’s ability to access services. The mother was objecting to the dismissal for these reasons. The court ordered the Department to attempt to locate the child and inform the child of any available, continuing services. The Department spoke with the child later that day, informing the child of available services. The case was dismissed by progress report on December 18, 2000.

Mothers of the children were present at 83 of the hearings. There were a total of 40 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 17 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 66 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 30 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 13 of the hearings. There were 51 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

The court hearings involved a total of 259 children. Fifty-six of the children were enrolled members and 203 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: 59 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 80 children were placed with relatives; 65 children were placed in Indian foster care; three 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 the children’s parents; two children were placed in a non-Indian foster home because DCFS originally thought the case was a non-ICWA case; 18 children were in emergency shelter placement; eight were in group homes; 14 were in residential treatment centers; one child was ordered to remain in detention pending further hearings regarding placement; and the whereabouts of seven children were unknown at the time of the hearing.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor