The hearings monitored during the 2002 calendar year involved a total of 426 children. Forty of the children were enrolled and 372 were eligible for membership. Five of the children were deemed not eligible for membership in their tribes. The placements of the children, as of December 31, 2002, were as follows: 144 of the children were at home; 128 children were placed with relatives; 90 were placed in Indian foster care; 8 children were placed in non-Indian foster homes; 27 children were in emergency shelter placement; 13 were in residential treatment facilities; 8 were in group homes; 1 child was held in detention pending further placement; 1 child was in the hospital; and the whereabouts of 6 children were unknown.

I monitored 98 hearings this quarter. Five (5%) were out of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Sixteen of the hearings monitored were hold hearings.

Ten 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 6 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 7 children. Eleven children who had been in placement were reunified this quarter with a parent or previous legal custodian. Eight of the hearings were continued without a hearing.

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

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

This was a CHIPS review hearing heard on October 8, 2002, before Judge Lefler. The attorney for the child failed to appear at the hearing.

This was a CHIPS emergency protective care hearing heard on October 30, 2002, before Judge Lefler. The father who was eligible for a public defender requested an attorney but none was located to appear on father’s behalf. The children who were present were also eligible for public defenders. No effort was made to locate attorneys to appear at the hold hearing on their behalf.

This was a TPR pretrial heard on November 18, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. Mother’s attorney failed to appear for the hearing. Mother was present at the hearing.

This was a TPR pretrial heard on December 3, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. Father’s attorney failed to appear for the hearing. The father 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 six 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.

One hearing violated the expert witness requirement of ICWA.

This was a CHIPS pretrial heard on October 21, 2002, before Judge Blaeser. One child had been in placement for almost four months with no expert testimony to support the placement. The child was clearly eligible in one tribe and most probably eligible in another tribe, but no testimony was provided to the court. The parents stated they wanted the child to remain in the current placement.

The court hearings involved a total of 174 children. Eighteen of the children were enrolled members and 156 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: 57 of the children were either returned home or remained at home under protective supervision; 45 children were placed with relatives; 37 children were placed in Indian foster care; 2 children were placed in non-Indian foster homes with the approval of the children’s tribe; 2 children were placed in a non-Indian foster home with the approval of the mother; 1 child was placed in a non-Indian foster home pursuant to delinquency jurisdiction; 18 children were in emergency shelter placement; 6 were in group homes; 3 were in residential treatment centers; 1 child was in the hospital; and the whereabouts of 2 children were unknown at the time of the hearing.

Mothers of the children were present at 60 of the hearings. There were a total of 39 fathers present at the hearings. Guardians ad litem were present at 68 of the hearings. Tribal representatives were present at 46 of the hearings. Minneapolis American Indian Center advocates were present at 33 of the hearings. Advocates from other community agencies were present at 1 of the hearings. There were 21 hearings where no tribal representative or Indian advocate was present.

Prepared by:

Paul T. Minehart

ICWA Court Monitor