Article by: JEREMY OLSON
Audit urges state to unify county and tribal standards in handling abuse and neglect allegations.
Minnesota's child welfare system needs stronger guidance to ensure that vulnerable children are treated consistently from one county to another, a legislative audit concluded Tuesday.
Testing county and tribal child-welfare agencies with 10 fictional cases of abuse and neglect, state auditors found wide variations in whether local officials deemed investigations necessary. It was a virtual 50-50 split, for example, on whether agencies would investigate a claim of a small child found wandering a block from home. And 64 percent said they wouldn't investigate as maltreatment a domestic abuse incident that occurred while a child was in another room.
Despite these so-called "gray area referrals," many of the state's child-welfare intake workers made reasonable and thoughtful deliberations, said Carrie Meyerhoff, the lead author of the report for the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor.
Child welfare advocates sought the audit because of wide regional variations in screening decisions -- and because Minnesota is unique, nationally, for the low rate of child abuse complaints that it "screens in" -- or flags -- for investigation or intervention. In 2010, Minnesota screened in a third of abuse complaints for further action; nationally, the figure was two-thirds, according to a federal Child Maltreatment report. Minnesota had the nation's third-lowest screen-in rate.
The report encouraged the Legislature to clarify the legal definition of "risk of harm," and urged the Department of Human Services to increase its training for evaluating and screening child maltreatment allegations.
Counties, for example, varied in whether they accepted anonymous child-welfare complaints, the auditors found. Meyerhoff said some county officials thought that the statute might prohibit anonymous reports. Erin Sullivan Sutton, an assistant commissioner with the state Department of Human Services, said the State Supreme Court has determined that anonymous reports are valid if they meet all other legal requirements.
The audit didn't address the question of teen neglect or abuse, but Rich Gehrman of Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota said counties are inherently more protective of young children.
"Once you are above a certain age, at least some counties are not going to screen you in no matter what the circumstance," he said.
'Small boats'
Minnesota is one of 11 states that empower counties to manage and help finance child-welfare services. One lawmaker at the hearing questioned whether decisions on abuse allegations would be standardized by creating a single state-run system. Neither Gehrman or Sullivan Sutton endorsed such an approach. Sullivan Sutton said the 11 county-run states have enacted some of the nation's most promising child-welfare reforms.
"It's sometimes easier to move 84 small boats," she said, referring to the number of child-welfare agencies in Minnesota, "than one large ship."
The report did not address why the state screens out more child abuse claims than most other states. Meyerhoff said unreliable data made such a comparison too difficult.
At least one observer said he thinks Minnesota might be doing things right. For example, said Richard Wexler of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, only 15 percent of the screened-in reports in Minnesota are turned away.
About 17 percent are substantiated, which means they become official child-welfare cases -- and kids can potentially be removed from their homes -- while another 65 percent receive alternative services to train parents and stabilize families.
"Minnesota caseworkers spend far less time spinning their wheels and more time actually providing help," Wexler said.
Source http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/wellness/139921823.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label tribal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tribal. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Gov.: No useful data in NPR report on Indian children
By: Tom Lawrence
Gov. Dennis Daugaard said he didn’t gain any useful information from a controversial 2011 public radio series on American Indian foster children in South Dakota.
“I can’t identify any legitimate criticisms that identified an area where we could take action,” Daugaard said. “It raised my level of knowledge, but I think that’s a poor way to cause me to raise my level of knowledge, through a sensational story that was unfounded.”
Laura Sullivan, a National Public Radio investigative correspondent, produced a three-part series titled “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families” that was heard on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” in October.
The series said South Dakota was one of 32 states that did not comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and other laws. It said state social workers had entered Indian reservations with which the state has no agreement and removed tribal children from their homes.
Daugaard, who has said little publicly about the issue since the reports aired, said Monday the series was based on “unfounded” information.
“I think it’s very unfortunate that NPR decided that they were going to create a very sensationalistic story,” he said. “And it’s also unfortunate because it’s such a complex area.”
Daugaard made his comments during a discussion with The Daily Republic’s editorial board Monday morning at the newspaper’s office in Mitchell, following a public appearance the governor made earlier Monday morning in the city.
Sullivan had her mind made up when she arrived in South Dakota, the governor said, and didn’t want to hear anything that differed from what she believed. He said numerous state employees who spoke with her felt that way.
“It’s really a lot of misinformation and poorly researched information,” Daugaard said. “I think we did our best to refute much of it.”
According to a discussion of the series on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” the series raised valid points.
“An average of 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes and placed in foster care each year, often in violation of federal law, an NPR investigation found,” the “Talk of the Nation” report states. “Native American children make up less than 15 percent of the state’s child population, but represent more than half of the kids in foster care.”
“Some Native Americans believe the problem is that Native children who are placed in foster care with non-Native families, as most are in South Dakota, lose connection to their culture, traditions and tribes,” the NPR report stated.
The series also spotlighted Daugaard’s role as CEO of the Children’s Home Society, which deals with many foster children and received several contracts with the state that totaled more than $50 million. He was the state’s part-time lieutenant governor for eight years while also leading CHS.
Daugaard “pre-responded” to the NPR stories before they aired, sending e-mails to South Dakota media outlets that claimed Sullivan, whom he declined to speak with, was biased and unwilling to listen to all sides of the story.
He repeated those assertions Monday.
Daugaard pointed out that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had contracts with the Children’s Home Society since 1978, long before he worked for it.
Daugaard and his director of policy and communications and chief spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said they have been in contact with NPR’s ombudsman for six weeks and have expressed their unhappiness with the series.
An ombudsman is an intermediary between parties with a differing point of view. Many large media organizations have employed ombudsmen since the 1970s.
Edward Schumacher-Matos is NPR’s ombudsman.
He is a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and a former reporter, editor and columnist for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In his final online post of 2011, Schumacher-Matos said he would look into the story.
“Coming soon is a look back at an investigation of Native American foster care in South Dakota,” Schumacher-Matos wrote on Dec. 23.
He did not respond to an e-mail Monday from The Daily Republic asking for additional comment.
Daugaard said he’s glad NPR has someone who is “portrayed as being independent” taking a look at how Sullivan dealt with the story.
Source http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/61208/
Gov. Dennis Daugaard said he didn’t gain any useful information from a controversial 2011 public radio series on American Indian foster children in South Dakota.
“I can’t identify any legitimate criticisms that identified an area where we could take action,” Daugaard said. “It raised my level of knowledge, but I think that’s a poor way to cause me to raise my level of knowledge, through a sensational story that was unfounded.”
Laura Sullivan, a National Public Radio investigative correspondent, produced a three-part series titled “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families” that was heard on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” in October.
The series said South Dakota was one of 32 states that did not comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and other laws. It said state social workers had entered Indian reservations with which the state has no agreement and removed tribal children from their homes.
Daugaard, who has said little publicly about the issue since the reports aired, said Monday the series was based on “unfounded” information.
“I think it’s very unfortunate that NPR decided that they were going to create a very sensationalistic story,” he said. “And it’s also unfortunate because it’s such a complex area.”
Daugaard made his comments during a discussion with The Daily Republic’s editorial board Monday morning at the newspaper’s office in Mitchell, following a public appearance the governor made earlier Monday morning in the city.
Sullivan had her mind made up when she arrived in South Dakota, the governor said, and didn’t want to hear anything that differed from what she believed. He said numerous state employees who spoke with her felt that way.
“It’s really a lot of misinformation and poorly researched information,” Daugaard said. “I think we did our best to refute much of it.”
According to a discussion of the series on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” the series raised valid points.
“An average of 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes and placed in foster care each year, often in violation of federal law, an NPR investigation found,” the “Talk of the Nation” report states. “Native American children make up less than 15 percent of the state’s child population, but represent more than half of the kids in foster care.”
“Some Native Americans believe the problem is that Native children who are placed in foster care with non-Native families, as most are in South Dakota, lose connection to their culture, traditions and tribes,” the NPR report stated.
The series also spotlighted Daugaard’s role as CEO of the Children’s Home Society, which deals with many foster children and received several contracts with the state that totaled more than $50 million. He was the state’s part-time lieutenant governor for eight years while also leading CHS.
Daugaard “pre-responded” to the NPR stories before they aired, sending e-mails to South Dakota media outlets that claimed Sullivan, whom he declined to speak with, was biased and unwilling to listen to all sides of the story.
He repeated those assertions Monday.
Daugaard pointed out that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had contracts with the Children’s Home Society since 1978, long before he worked for it.
Daugaard and his director of policy and communications and chief spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said they have been in contact with NPR’s ombudsman for six weeks and have expressed their unhappiness with the series.
An ombudsman is an intermediary between parties with a differing point of view. Many large media organizations have employed ombudsmen since the 1970s.
Edward Schumacher-Matos is NPR’s ombudsman.
He is a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and a former reporter, editor and columnist for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In his final online post of 2011, Schumacher-Matos said he would look into the story.
“Coming soon is a look back at an investigation of Native American foster care in South Dakota,” Schumacher-Matos wrote on Dec. 23.
He did not respond to an e-mail Monday from The Daily Republic asking for additional comment.
Daugaard said he’s glad NPR has someone who is “portrayed as being independent” taking a look at how Sullivan dealt with the story.
Source http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/61208/
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Supreme Court Approached on ICWA Issue - Cherokee Nation
By Carol Berry
The Cherokee Nation and one of its members have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide issues raised by a ruling of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that disputed the right of tribes to define tribal membership in Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases.
Specifically, the high court will be asked to consider whether a federally recognized Indian tribe’s membership criteria determine whether a child is a “member” of that tribe for ICWA purposes.
Tribes may have the exclusive right to determine their membership for tribal purposes, but not if they seek to define membership in order to expand a federal (ICWA) statute, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled last April.
The current petitioners charge that the federal appeals court erred in distinguishing between membership for tribal and federal statutory purposes, because “tribal membership is bound up in the tribe’s sovereign self-determination—as it is in ICWA, where the statutory focus on tribal membership is designed to ‘promote the safety and security of Indian tribes.’”
The issues arose when, in 2007, Britney Jane Little Dove Nielson, then 17, relinquished her parenting rights for her day-old son, C.D.K. and consented to his adoption, but later sought a District Court ruling to invalidate the relinquishment, citing ICWA safeguards against removing Indian children from their families. Nielson herself became a Cherokee tribal member within the next year.
The Cherokee Nation intervened on Nielson’s behalf, arguing that C.D.K. was an Indian child under ICWA because of a section of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act which provides that every newborn “who is a direct descendant of an original enrollee shall be automatically admitted as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation for a period of 240 days following the birth of the child.”
Nielson also argued that the termination was invalid because it violated an ICWA provision that imposes a 10-day period before a parent can consent to the termination of parenting rights over an Indian child, and the District Court agreed, tossing out the termination
A subsequent appeal to the 10th Circuit turned on “whether C.D.K. is an ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA,” the court said, noting that the ICWA definition of “Indian child” applies to an unmarried person under age 18 who is a tribal member and C.D.K. “was thus an Indian child at the time of the relinquishment hearing if, and only if, he was a member of the Cherokee Nation at that time.”
He was a member if the Citizenship Act applied to him at the time of the hearing as a direct descendant of an original enrollee, which the federal appeals court accepted, and if the Act could permissibly extend him citizenship in the ICWA context, a conclusion with which the court disagreed.
ICWA does not apply to the 240-day citizenship awarded by the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act, the court said. “We find that Congress did not intend the ICWA to authorize this sort of gamesmanship on the part of a tribe—e.g., to authorize a temporary and nonjurisdictional citizenship upon a nonconsenting person in order to invoke ICWA protections.”
Petitioners to the Supreme Court disagree with the “gamesmanship” argument that “a child may not be a ‘member’ of a tribe for ICWA purposes even though he or she is a member for internal tribal purposes,” because the distinction would undermine fundamental purposes of tribal sovereignty.
In BIA guidelines for implementing ICWA, “the determination by a tribe that a child is or is not a member of that tribe…is conclusive,” state the current petitioners, who also charge that the federal appeals court has ignored congressional intent in ICWA “to preserve tribal sovereignty and safeguard Indian children.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/10/supreme-court-approached-on-icwa-issue-66774
The Cherokee Nation and one of its members have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide issues raised by a ruling of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that disputed the right of tribes to define tribal membership in Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases.
Specifically, the high court will be asked to consider whether a federally recognized Indian tribe’s membership criteria determine whether a child is a “member” of that tribe for ICWA purposes.
Tribes may have the exclusive right to determine their membership for tribal purposes, but not if they seek to define membership in order to expand a federal (ICWA) statute, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled last April.
The current petitioners charge that the federal appeals court erred in distinguishing between membership for tribal and federal statutory purposes, because “tribal membership is bound up in the tribe’s sovereign self-determination—as it is in ICWA, where the statutory focus on tribal membership is designed to ‘promote the safety and security of Indian tribes.’”
The issues arose when, in 2007, Britney Jane Little Dove Nielson, then 17, relinquished her parenting rights for her day-old son, C.D.K. and consented to his adoption, but later sought a District Court ruling to invalidate the relinquishment, citing ICWA safeguards against removing Indian children from their families. Nielson herself became a Cherokee tribal member within the next year.
The Cherokee Nation intervened on Nielson’s behalf, arguing that C.D.K. was an Indian child under ICWA because of a section of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act which provides that every newborn “who is a direct descendant of an original enrollee shall be automatically admitted as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation for a period of 240 days following the birth of the child.”
Nielson also argued that the termination was invalid because it violated an ICWA provision that imposes a 10-day period before a parent can consent to the termination of parenting rights over an Indian child, and the District Court agreed, tossing out the termination
A subsequent appeal to the 10th Circuit turned on “whether C.D.K. is an ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA,” the court said, noting that the ICWA definition of “Indian child” applies to an unmarried person under age 18 who is a tribal member and C.D.K. “was thus an Indian child at the time of the relinquishment hearing if, and only if, he was a member of the Cherokee Nation at that time.”
He was a member if the Citizenship Act applied to him at the time of the hearing as a direct descendant of an original enrollee, which the federal appeals court accepted, and if the Act could permissibly extend him citizenship in the ICWA context, a conclusion with which the court disagreed.
ICWA does not apply to the 240-day citizenship awarded by the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act, the court said. “We find that Congress did not intend the ICWA to authorize this sort of gamesmanship on the part of a tribe—e.g., to authorize a temporary and nonjurisdictional citizenship upon a nonconsenting person in order to invoke ICWA protections.”
Petitioners to the Supreme Court disagree with the “gamesmanship” argument that “a child may not be a ‘member’ of a tribe for ICWA purposes even though he or she is a member for internal tribal purposes,” because the distinction would undermine fundamental purposes of tribal sovereignty.
In BIA guidelines for implementing ICWA, “the determination by a tribe that a child is or is not a member of that tribe…is conclusive,” state the current petitioners, who also charge that the federal appeals court has ignored congressional intent in ICWA “to preserve tribal sovereignty and safeguard Indian children.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/10/supreme-court-approached-on-icwa-issue-66774
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Number of American Indian children in foster care worries tribal leaders - Minnesota
by Sasha Aslanian
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Minnesota - High court: State, not tribe, must preside over adoption
Decision reverses two earlier orders favoring White Earth Band of Ojibwe. Parents' rights had been terminated.
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)