KEY: HISTORIC/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY;

ICWA’S PURPOSE;

POWER OF CONGRESS;

EXISTING INDIAN FAMILY (EIF);

BEST INTERESTS;

TRIBAL PROCEDURAL INVOLVEMENT;

PLACEMENT PREFERENCES;

DEFINING TERMS UNDER ICWA

BRIEF / ARGUMENT 1 / ARGUMENT 2 / ARGUMENT 3 / ARGUMENT 4 / ARGUMENT 5
American Indian Affairs, National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Child Welfare Association, Indian Tribes, and Other Indian Organization:
CLICK HERE / Congress held hearings in the 1970s in regard to a crisis in state child welfare and adoption systems - a crisis that resulted in large numbers of Indian children being separated from their parents, Tribes and extended families and placed with non-Indians / Congress responded to this crisis by enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act to establish minimum federal standards for the separation of Indian children from their families and to provide specific protections to Indian families and Tribes / Father is a “parent” within the meaning of ICWA and is entitled to invoke its protections against termination of parental rights / The application of ICWA is not dependent upon prior custody of an Indian child by an Indian parent; the Act is triggered by an Indian child involved in a child custody proceeding and the existing Indian family exception (EIF) should be rejected
Adult Pre-ICWA Indian Adoptees:
CLICK HERE / ICWA Is Designed To Prevent The Separation Of Indian Children From The Indian Community Through Various Child Placement Practices, Including Voluntary Adoption / ICWA Protects The Best Interests Of Indian Children By Establishing Procedural And Substantive Safeguards That Properly Protect Their Connection To Indian Tribes / Amici's Pre-ICWA Adoption Experiences Demonstrate That Maintaining Tribal Ties Serves The Best Interests Of An Indian Child
Current and Former Members of Congress:
Click Here / CONGRESS ENACTED ICWA IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CONTINUED SOVEREIGN, POLITICAL EXISTENCE OF INDIAN TRIBES / CONGRESS HAS THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO LEGISLATE WITH RESPECT TO INDIAN TRIBES / ICWA FALLS WITHIN CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES
Casey Family Programs, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Voice for Adoption, and Twelve Other National Child Welfare Organizations:
CLICK HERE / THE BEST PRACTICES IN CHILD WELFARE OF ENSURING STRONG SAFEGUARDS BEFORE SEVERING A CHILD'S TIES TO AN ACKNOWLEDGED, INTERESTED, AND FIT PARENT ARE EMBODIED IN ICWA / ICWA REFLECTS CONGRESS'S JUDGMENT TO ADHERE TO BEST PRACTICES IN CHILD WELFARE, NOT AN INVALID PREFERENCE
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma:
CLICK HERE / Historical Framework / The Policy Behind The Indian Child Welfare Act / The ICWA Provides the Necessary Mechanism to Ensure Indian Nation Involvement in State Court Child Custody Proceedings
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and Tohono O'odham Nation:
CLICK HERE / Tribal Participation is a Fundamental Aspect of ICWA and Should Be Protected / Adopting the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, or a State Law Based Definition of “Parent,” Would Complicate Child Custody Proceedings, Interfere with the Tribes' Rights to Notice and Intervention, and Harm Indian Children
Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin:
CLICK HERE / The Act Applies to Proceedings Involving an Indian Child Regardless of the Child's Membership in an “Existing Indian Family” or the Parent's Custodial Status / Allowing Unwed Fathers of Indian Children to Timely Acknowledge or Establish Paternity by Means Other than Strict Compliance with State Paternity Laws Comports with ICWA's Purpose and Objectives and Supports the States' Goal of Efficient and Stable Adoptions of Indian Children
Minnesota Department of Human Services and Minnesota Ombudsperson for American Indian Families:
CLICK HERE / THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT / INDIAN CHILD WELFARE IN MINNESOTA / DHS AND THE OMBUDSPERSON ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO INTERPRET ICWA TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW MINNESOTA AGENCIES THE AUTHORITY TO EFFECTUATE ICWA'S GOALS
The Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Association:
CLICK HERE / ICWA Is Configured To Protect The Best Interests Of Indian Children And To Promote The Stability And Security Of Indian Tribes
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Bristol Bay Native Association, Association of Village Council Presidents, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Native Village Of Barrow, and the Orutsaramiut Native Council:
CLICK HERE / The Historical and Cultural Landscape in Alaska Is Unique, and Any Narrowing of ICWA Will Be Detrimental to Alaska Native Children / Alaska Courts Have Consistently Recognized That ICWA Is Meant to Promote Tribal Control Over Custody Decisions Involving Alaska Native Children / Important Progress in Alaska TribalState Relations Would Be Undermined If This Court Accepts Petitioners' Arguments That ICWA Imposes Distinctions Based on Race and Residency on Tribal Lands
Wisconsin Tribes:
CLICK HERE / AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ICWA IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONTINUING EXISTENCE OF THE AMICI / ICWA'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THE “EXISTING INDIAN FAMILY” DOCTRINE / THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES WHY CONGRESS ADOPTED THE PLACEMENT PREFERENCES IN SECTION 1915(a)
The National Native American Bar Association:
CLICK HERE / The Indian Child Welfare Act's singular purpose is to protect Tribes' sovereign interest in their citizens / ICWA's purpose to protect Tribes' interests in their children is distinct from individual parental interests / The purported existing Indian family doctrine exception to ICWA conflicts with ICWA's purpose of protecting Tribes' independent sovereign interest in their citizens
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of South Carolina:
CLICK HERE / THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER THAT ESTABLISHES ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARDS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN, PARENTS, AND TRIBES / THE ADOPTION DISPUTE REGARDING BABY GIRL FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONCERNS THAT PROMPTED PASSAGE OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT
National Latina/o Psychological Association, Asian-American Psychological Association, Association of Black Psychologists, and Society of Indian Psychologists:
CLICK HERE / Psychological Considerations Must be Appropriately Evaluated to Successfully Determine Custody of a Child / The Lower Court Properly Applied an Appropriate Best Interests Analysis Informed by the Cultural Priorities of ICWA
Lower Sioux Indian Community, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Prairie Island Indian Community, Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, White Earth Band of Ojibwe, The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, The Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Upper Sioux Community, The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, The Red Lake Nation, The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and The Indian Child Welfare Act Law Center:
CLICK HERE / ICWA provides a platform of minimum standards upon which Minnesota works to protect the best interests of Indian children, their families, and their tribes / By following the plain language and policy of ICWA, Minnesota stakeholders have already resolved that ICWA applies regardless of state-law parenting rights / By following the plain language and policy of ICWA, Minnesota stakeholders have, like most jurisdictions, rejected the “existing Indian family” exception as inconsistent with ICWA / The minimum federal protections of ICWA remain important to Indian children and Indian tribes in Minnesota and should be followed
Seminole Tribe of Florida, et al.:
CLICK HERE / The constitutionality of ICWA as applied in this case should be determined under this Court's precedents recognizing the wide breadth of Congress's constitutional Indian affairs powers, which account for equal protection limitations / Because the application of ICWA by the South Carolina courts was based on the protection of tribal citizenship, not race, it met the Indian rational basis standard and fell within the core Congressional powers acknowledged even by the Petitioners and the Guardian / The restrictive threshold tests advanced by the Petitioners and Guardian to avoid the proper standard of review are not supported by law / The threshold tests proposed by the Guardian and the Petitioners are fatally subjective and would force courts into a policymaking role properly reserved for Congress / The “Existing Indian Family” doctrine advanced by the Petitioners and the Guardian suffers from the same fatal flaws as their threshold tests for constitutionality
the Hamline University School of Law Child Advocacy Clinic:
CLICK HERE / To Protect the Best Interests of Indian Children the Policy Goals of the ICWA Must be Followed / To Protect the Best Interests of Indian Children, Guardians ad Litem Must Consider the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Unique Needs of Indian Children When Making Their Recommendations Regarding the Adoption or Permanent Placement of an Indian Child
The Honorable Abby Abinanti, Chief Justice of the Yurok Tribal Court:
CLICK HERE / The Treatment of the California Tribal People by the Invaders Seared into the Fabric of our Relationship a Pervasive Ability for the Invaders and their Heirs to “See” Tribal People as Not as Good / Having Survived Genocide in Tribal Homelands Across the Country, Tribal People Argue that this Court Must Not Cloak this Century's Desire for Tribal Children in False Claims / Returning to the Time Before the Indian Child Welfare Act is to Weaken Our People, Our Nations, and to Place us at the Mercy of Those Who Have an Ongoing History of Justifying Kidnapping Our Children
The Navajo Nation:
CLICK HERE / ICWA HAS APPLIED SINCE THE CHILD'S BIRTH TO ANY MATTERS RESPECTING CHILD'S CUSTODY; AND THE FATHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS REMAIN INTACT / “ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR ESTABLISHMENT” OF “PATERNITY” TO DEFINE “PARENT” UNDER ICWA SHOULD BE DEFINED BY APPLICABLE TRIBAL LAW GOVERNING FAMILIAL RELATIONS, NOT STATE LAW / THE EIF DOCTRINE CONTRADICTS ICWA
Professors of Indian Law:
CLICK HERE / U.S. policy formerly favored removing Indian children from their families as a means of “civilizing” the Indians / U.S. policy formerly favored eradicating Indian tribes and Indian culture to facilitate the Indians' assimilation / Because Congress intended ICWA to put a stop to these practices, the statute was drafted so that it may be invoked by all parents, whether or not custodial
63 California Indian Tribes:
CLICK HERE / The History of the Treatment of California Tribes is Relevant to the Purpose and Implementation of the ICWA / Altering the Scope of the ICWA Will Upset Settled California Law / California Tribes and Counties Are Involved in Numerous Collaborative Efforts to Better Implement the ICWA
The United States:
CLICK HERE / ICWA applies to this child custody proceeding / Father is a “parent” under ICWA / Section 1912(d) barred termination of Father's parental rights / The South Carolina Supreme Court misinterpreted Section 1912(f) / Application of ICWA in this case presents no constitutional concerns