Amicus Curiae Brief — Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. Chad Everet Brackeen, et al.

Nos. 21-376, 21-377, 21-378, 21-380

================================================================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------DEB HAALAND, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

CHAD EVERET BRACKEEN, et al.,

Respondents.

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------On Writs Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fifth Circuit

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------BRIEF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN AND THIRTY

OTHER CHILDREN’S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

FEDERAL AND TRIBAL DEFENDANTS

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------KIM DVORCHAK

ALLISON GREEN

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN

899 N. Logan St., Suite 208

Denver, CO 80203

(303) 864-5320

Kim.Dvorchak@

NACCchildlaw.org

KATHRYN A. EIDMANN,

Counsel of Record

TARA FORD

SARAH CAMISCOLI

PUBLIC COUNSEL

610 S. Ardmore Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90005

(213) 385-2977

keidmann@

publiccounsel.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

[Additional Captions Listed On Inside Cover]

================================================================================================================

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964

WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------CHEROKEE NATION, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

CHAD EVERET BRACKEEN, et al.,

Respondents.

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Petitioner,

v.

DEB HAALAND, Secretary of the

U.S. Department of the Interior, et al.,

Respondents.

---------------------------------♦--------------------------------CHAD EVERET BRACKEEN, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

DEB HAALAND, Secretary,

U.S. Department of the Interior, et al.,

Respondents.

---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .........................

1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................

1

ARGUMENT ........................................................

4

I.

ICWA SAFEGUARDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT STAKE IN CHILD

WELFARE PROCEEDINGS FOR INDIAN

CHILDREN................................................

4

A. The Constitution Protects Families from

Unwarranted State Intervention, Which

Supports Children’s Well-Being ............

5

B. The Constitution Limits the Circumstances Under Which the State May

Remove a Child from Parent Custody ......................................................

6

C. ICWA Preserves the Constitutional

Right to Family Integrity by Preventing Unwarranted Removals ................

9

D. ICWA Preserves the Constitutional

Right to Family Integrity by Prioritizing Placement with Extended Family

and Other Tribal Members .................. 11

II.

ICWA ALIGNS WITH STATE COURTS’

EFFORTS TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF INDIAN CHILDREN ................. 13

A. State Best Interest Factors Are Aligned

with ICWA ........................................... 15

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

B. States Have Affirmed and Codified

ICWA’s Protections into Their State

Laws..................................................... 21

III.

ICWA PROVIDES CRITICAL INFORMATION AND SUPPORT TO STATE

COURTS .................................................... 23

A. State Child Welfare Systems Across

the Country Face Persistent Challenges and Resource Constraints that

Compromise the Information Provided

to State Courts in Individual Proceedings ...................................................... 25

B. ICWA Ensures that State Courts Have

Critical Information Necessary to Promote the Constitutional Rights and

Best Interests of Indian Children ....... 28

CONCLUSION..................................................... 33

APPENDIX

List of Amici Curiae....................................................1a

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

In re A.B., 2003 ND 98, 663 N.W.2d 625 ....................21

In re Angus, 655 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1982) ............21

In re Armell, 550 N.E.2d 1060 (Ill. App. Ct.

1990) ........................................................................21

In re B.T.B., 436 P.3d 206 (Utah Ct. App. 2018),

aff ’d on other grounds, 472 P.3d 827 (2020) ..........24

In re Baby Boy L., 103 P.3d 1099 (Okla. 2004) .... 21, 23

In re D.L.L., 291 N.W.2d 278 (S.D. 1980) ...................21

In re Dependency of G.J.A., 489 P.3d 631 (Wash.

2021) ........................................................................28

In re Dependency of K.W., 504 P.3d 207 (Wash.

2022) ........................................................................18

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash.

2020) ........................................................................20

In re Marcus S., 638 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1994) ................21

In re Miller, 451 N.W.2d 576 (Mich. Ct. App.

1990) ........................................................................21

In re N.L., 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988) .........................30

In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903,

635 P.2d 187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981) .................... 21, 31

M.D. by Stukenberg v. Abbott, 907 F.3d 237 (5th

Cir. 2018) .................................................................27

M.D. by Stukenberg v. Abbott, 929 F.3d 272 (5th

Cir. 2019) .................................................................27

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

M.D. v. Abbott, 152 F. Supp. 3d 684 (S.D. Tex.

2015) .................................................................... 3, 27

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ............. 5, 6, 13

Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) .........6

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ...........6

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) ..............5

Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) ................. 5, 8

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) ...................... 2, 7, 8

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981) .....................5

Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for

Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) ...............5

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).........................5

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) ..................... 2, 5

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ........... 5, 6, 13

STATUTES

19 Guam Code Ann. § 5129 .......................................... 16

19 Guam Code Ann. § 13317 ........................................ 18

19 Guam Code Ann. § 13324 ........................................ 18

20 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/7 ............................................... 18

25 U.S.C. § 1901(4) ........................................................9

25 U.S.C. § 1902 ................................................ 1, 11, 16

25 U.S.C. § 1903(1) ........................................................7

25 U.S.C. § 1903(2) ......................................................29

25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) ......................................................11

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) ......................................................10

25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) ................................................... 10

25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) ................................................... 10

25 U.S.C. § 1915(e) ......................................................22

25 U.S.C. § 1921 ............................................................ 22

25 U.S.C. § 1922 ..........................................................10

25 U.S.C. § 1951(a) ......................................................22

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6351 ........................................ 17, 19

42 U.S.C. § 627(a) .................................................. 17, 19

42 U.S.C. § 629 ............................................................17

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) ........................................... 14, 17

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) ........................................... 14, 19

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29) ........................................... 14, 19

42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)(A)(ii) ..........................................14

42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(F) ...................................................19

2006 Cal. Stat. 6535....................................................22

Ala. Code § 12-15-101(b)(1) .......................................... 16

Ala. Code § 38-12-2(b).................................................18

Alaska Stat. § 47.05.065(4) ........................................16

Alaska Stat. § 47.10.990(10) ......................................21

Alaska Stat. § 47.14.100(e) .........................................18

Am. Samoa Code Ann. § 45.0102(a)(1)-(3) .................16

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-514.02 ............................ 17, 18

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 ..........................................18

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355(a)(1)(A) ............................17

Cal. Fam. Code § 175(a) ..............................................20

Cal. Fam. Code § 9209 ................................................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(c) ...............................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.2(e) ...............................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.6 ...................................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.3 ...................................18

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.7 ...................................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.31 .................................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.31(m) ...........................22

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16000(a)..............................19

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16000(a)-(c) ........................16

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-102(1) ......................................16

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-403 .................................... 17, 18

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-508(1)(b) .................................17

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101m ......................................18

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-719 .........................................15

D.C. Code § 16-2353 ....................................................15

Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722 .......................................15

Del. Code Ann. tit. 31, § 356 .......................................18

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.401(2) ..........................................18

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.401(2)(a)(3) .................................17

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.521(3) ..........................................18

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.521(8) ..........................................18

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.810 ........................................ 15, 19

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.5085 ............................................17

Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-1 .............................................16

Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-26 ...........................................15

Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-26(12) .....................................20

Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-211 .........................................18

Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-135 .........................................18

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2 ........................... 15, 16, 19, 20

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2(2) ........................................17

Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 587A-9 to -10.................................18

Idaho Code § 16-1601 .................................................16

Idaho Code § 16-1629(11) ...........................................18

Ind. Code § 31-34-4-2 ..................................................18

Ind. Code § 31-34-19-6 ................................................16

Indian Child Welfare Act .................................... passim

Iowa Code § 232.84 .....................................................18

Iowa Code § 232B.1.....................................................22

Iowa Code § 232B.2.....................................................20

Iowa Code § 232B.5.....................................................22

Iowa Code § 232B.5(19) ..............................................22

Iowa Code § 232B.6(5)(b) ............................................22

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Iowa Code § 232B.9.....................................................22

Iowa Code § 232B.9(8) ................................................22

Iowa Code § 232B.10...................................................30

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-2201(b) ................................ 15, 16

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-2255(d) ......................................18

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620.023 ......................................15

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620.090 ......................................18

La. Stat. Ann. § 46:286.1 ............................................18

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 1 ......................................15

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 23(c) ................................19

Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-525(f)(1)......................15

Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-534(c)..........................19

Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4003 ......................................... 16, 19

Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(2)-(3) .....................................15

Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4062(4) ..........................................19

Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 712B.1-.41 ...............................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(2) .................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(2)-(3)............................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(4) .................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.17 .....................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.23 .....................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.23(7) .................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.25(2) .................................22

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.35 .....................................22

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.23 ........................................15

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.954a ....................................19

Minn. Stat. § 259.77....................................................19

Minn. Stat. §§ 260.751-.835........................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.755..................................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 17a .......................... 22, 30

Minn. Stat. § 260.761, subd. 2-3 .................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.762, subd. 3 ....................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.771, subd. 6 ....................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.771, subd. 7 ....................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260.781..................................................22

Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 26b..............................21

Minn. Stat. § 260C.193, subd. 3(a) .............................19

Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 1..................................19

Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13 ........................................19

Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-103 ......................................16

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.565 ..............................................19

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.443 ..............................................16

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101 ................................. 16, 19

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101(3) to (5) .........................17

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101(1)(f) ...............................20

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-439 .......................................19

x

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-439(1) ...................................17

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-100 .............................................16

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-505 ....................................... 17, 19

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15a).....................................21

N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1) ........................... 15, 16

N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(d) .............................17

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:2(III) .............................16

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-1(a) to (b) ...............................16

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-1(f) .........................................16

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-12.1........................................19

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-1-3 ...........................................16

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-1-3(d) ......................................20

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-21 .........................................19

N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 32A-28-1 to -42.............................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-2(F) ....................................21

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-3(B) ....................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-6 .........................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-13(B) ..................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-15(C) to (E) ........................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-17 .......................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-21 .......................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-26(C) ..................................22

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-37 .......................................22

xi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 ........................................ 16, 19

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1501 to -1517 ............................22

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1505(1)........................................22

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1505(4) to (5) ..............................22

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1508 ............................................22

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1508(5)........................................22

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.005(2)(c) ....................................15

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(2)(a) ....................................19

N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1017 ....................................... 17, 19

N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1055-b ..........................................17

Ohio Admin. Code 5101:2-42-05 .................................19

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414(D)(1) .......................15

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5153.161 .................................17

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 40.1-.9 ................................. 22, 23

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.3(C) ........................................22

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.5(B) ........................................22

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.6 .............................................22

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.9 .............................................22

Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-1-102(B) ................................16

Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204 .....................................19

Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204(A) ................................22

Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204(A)(1)............................21

Or. Admin. R. 413-120-0730 .......................................21

xii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.137(1) ..........................................15

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(1) ........................................19

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(5) ........................................21

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 419B.600-.665 ..................................22

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.642 ............................................22

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645 ............................................22

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.654(1)-(3) ..................................22

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.656 ............................................22

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.878 ............................................22

P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 1, § 421 .........................................16

R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-11-12.2........................................19

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-72-2(1) to (2)...............................16

S.C. Code Ann. § 63-1-20(d) ........................................17

S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2320 ........................................19

S.D. Codified Laws § 26-7A-19.1 ................................19

S.D. Codified Laws § 26-7A-56 ...................................15

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i) ....................................15

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-2-403 ........................................19

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.101 ....................................8

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b) ..............................15

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 264.752 ..................................19

Utah Code Ann. § 80-2a-201(1) ..................................17

Utah Code Ann. § 80-2a-201(3) ..................................17

xiii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Utah Code Ann. § 80-2a-201(7) ..................................17

Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-302 .................................. 17, 19

Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-302(7)(d) ................................17

Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-281 ............................................19

Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3 ............................................15

V.I. Code Ann. tit. 5, § 2501(e) ....................................17

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15A, § 3-504(c) ...............................15

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, §§ 5307-5308 ...................... 17, 19

W. Va. Code § 49-1-105 ................................................17

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.020 ......................................17

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.060 ......................................19

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.130 ......................................19

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.010-.190 ..............................22

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(1) ..................................22

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.130(1)-(3) ............................22

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.180 ......................................22

Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.020(2)(a)(vi) ........................21

Wis. Stat. § 48.028 ......................................................22

Wis. Stat. § 48.028(4)(a)..............................................22

Wis. Stat. § 48.028(4)(d)-(e) ........................................22

Wis. Stat. § 48.028(7)(f) ..............................................22

Wis. Stat. § 48.426(2)-(3) ............................................15

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-201 .........................................17

xiv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-208 ................................... 17, 19

705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/1-3(4.05)...............................15

705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/1-3(4.05)(f) ...........................20

REGULATIONS AND RULES

25 C.F.R. § 23.122 .......................................................30

25 C.F.R. § 23.132(c) ...................................................13

80 Fed. Reg. 10157 (Feb. 25, 2015) .............................30

S. Ct. R. 37.3(a) .............................................................1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Adrea Korthase, Sophia I. Gatowski & Mark

Erickson, Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

Courts: A Tool for Improving Outcomes for

American Indian Children and Families, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges (2021) ..........................................................28

American Bar Association, Children’s Rights

Litigation Committee, Trauma Caused by

Separation of Children from Parents: A Tool

to Help Lawyers (2020) ...........................................29

American Bar Association Resolution 118 2019A

(2019), https://www.americanbar.org/content/

dam/aba/directories/policy/annual-2019/118annual-2019.pdf ................................................ 12, 19

xv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Carmella B. Kahn, et al., American Indian Elders’ Resilience: Sources of Strength for Building a Healthy Future for Youth, 23 Am. Indian

& Alaska Native Mental Health Rsch. 117

(2016) .......................................................................12

Carol L. Tebben, In Defense of ICWA: The Constitution, Public Policy, and Pragmatism, in

Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare

Act at 30 (Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al. eds.,

2009) .................................................................. 29, 31

Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Nell

Jessup Newton ed., 2019) ........................... 16, 20, 30

Douglas E. Abrams, Susan V. Mangold & Sarah

H. Ramsey, Children and the Law: Doctrine,

Policy and Practice (7th ed. 2020) ..........................27

Eun Koh, Permanency Outcomes of Children in

Kinship and Non-kinship Foster Care: Testing

the External Validity of Kinship Effects, 32

Child. & Youth Servs. Rev. 389 (2010) ....................18

Fourth Report of the Monitors, M.D. by Stukenberg v. Abbott, No. 2-11-CV-00084 (S.D. Tex.

2015) (filed June 2, 2022) ........................................27

ICWA Compliance Task Force Report to the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Children’s

Justice (2017), https://theacademy.sdsu.edu/

wp-content/uploads/2015/06/icwa-compliancetask-force-final-report-2017.pdf ....................... 29, 31

xvi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Josh Gupta-Kagan, Confronting Indeterminacy

and Bias in Child Protection Law, 33 Stan. L.

& Pol’y Rev. (forthcoming 2022)..............................17

Josh Gupta-Kagan, Nat’l Ass’n of Counsel for

Child., The Constitutional Right to Family Integrity, in Child Welfare Law and Practice: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies

in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Cases (4th

ed. forthcoming 2022) .................................................6

Letter from John J. Specia, Jr., Comm’r, Tex.

Dep’t of Fam. and Protective Servs., to Elizabeth Appel, U.S. Dep’t of Interior (May 19,

2015), https://tinyurl.com/3mhja9er .......................23

Marc A. Winokur et al., Matched Comparison of

Children in Kinship Care and Foster Care on

Child Welfare Outcomes, 89 Fams. in Soc’y: J.

Contemp. Soc. Servs. 338 (2008) .............................18

National Association of Counsel for Children,

State Models of Children’s Legal Representation (May 2022), https://secureservercdn.

net/50.62.198.124/zmc.c18.myftpupload.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Model-of-Rep-Chart2022.pdf ...................................................................32

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (2016) .............................................. 19, 26

Restatement (First) of Child. & the L. (Am. L.

Inst., Tentative Draft No. 4, 2022) ...................... 8, 18

xvii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Suzanne L. Cross et al., Working on the Front

Lines: The Role of Social Work in Response

to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, in

Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare

Act at 30 (Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al. eds.,

2009) ........................................................................30

Terry L. Cross & Robert J. Miller, The Indian

Child Welfare Act of 1978 and Its Impact on

Tribal Sovereignty and Governance, in Facing

the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30

(Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al. eds., 2009) ..............29

Therese Rowe Lund & Jennifer Renne, Child

Safety: A Guide for Judges and Attorneys,

American Bar Association (2009) .............................8

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children and Families, Child

Maltreatment 2020 (2022), https://www.acf.

hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment .......25

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services

Reviews, Fact Sheet for Tribal Child Welfare

Officials, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/

files/documents/cb/cfsr_tribal_factsheet.pdf ..........26

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services

Reviews Texas Final Report (2016). ........................26

xviii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children and Families, Children’s

Bureau, Child and Family Services Review

Round 3 Report for Legal and Judicial Communities (January 2021) .........................................26

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children & Families, Children’s

Bureau, Reunifying Families, https://www.child

welfare.gov/topics/permanency/reunification/........11

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Children’s

Bureau, Achieving Permanency for the WellBeing of Children and Youth (2021), https://

www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/

cb/im2101.pdf .................................................... 17, 19

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Children’s

Bureau, Determining the Best Interests of the

Child (June 2020), https://www.childwelfare.

gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf ..............................15

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Children’s

Bureau, Developing a Trauma-Informed Child

Welfare System (May 2015), https://www.child

welfare.gov/pubpdfs/trauma_informed.pdf ............31

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici are children’s rights organizations throughout the country who provide legal representation to

or policy advocacy on behalf of children experiencing

foster care. Amici have extensive experience providing

legal representation to children in child welfare proceedings, adoption and non-divorce related custody

cases, and extensive policy expertise in child welfare

and children’s rights issues.2

---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Amici respectfully submit this brief to correct fundamental misrepresentations made by Plaintiffs and

their amici regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act’s

(ICWA) protection of the legal rights and best interests

of Indian children. ICWA was enacted to “protect the

best interests of Indian children,” 25 U.S.C. § 1902, and

that is exactly what it does. Plaintiffs and their amici

incorrectly claim that ICWA “overrides the ‘best interests of the child’ rule,” Br. of Goldwater Inst., et al. as

Amici Curiae 28, and “compels the State[ ] . . . to deny

Indian children the best interests determination they

would receive under state law,” Br. for Individual

1

Counsel of record for all parties consented to the filing of

this brief. S. Ct. R. 37.3(a). No counsel for any party authored this

brief in whole or in part, and no person or entity other than amicus curiae or its counsel made a monetary contribution intended

to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2

See appendix for complete list of amici.

2

Plaintiffs 32. These representations are false in two

key respects.

First, this Court has made clear that the “ ‘best interest of the child’ rule” applies to custody disputes between two parents; it is not the sole standard in

proceedings involving the removal of a child from parental custody. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304

(1993). The Constitution limits the state’s intervention

in the family, which protects the right to family integrity and promotes the well-being of children. See Troxel

v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66–69 (2000). It does not permit courts to remove children and dissolve family ties

to match children to the “best” resources or to intervene simply because a parent’s care does not conform

to a court’s view of ideal parenting practices. Id. While

courts do consider a child’s best interest when making

placement determinations, they do so within these

well-established constitutional limitations. ICWA safeguards these rights and interests in child welfare proceedings involving Indian children.

Second, ICWA is consistent with the best interest

determinations that state courts make in child welfare

proceedings. In addition to binding constitutional principles, numerous state and federal laws guide state

courts in all child welfare cases when determining

what outcome is in a child’s best interest after removal.

State statutes typically direct state courts to consider

factors that protect and promote children’s well-being.

These are the same factors that ICWA seeks to maximize: family integrity, placement with extended family, and maintenance of community and culture. ICWA

3

is simply a specific application of regular child welfare

practice for children who—unlike other youth in the

child welfare system—have a particular legal status as

a result of their tribal affiliation. ICWA does not “override” or “subordinate” any generally applicable state or

federal child welfare standard; rather, it addresses the

specific situation of Indian children.

Additionally, ICWA remains critical to safeguard

the rights and interests of Indian children. To protect

children’s rights, state courts need complete and accurate information. Child welfare matters involving Indian

children require additional information, including the

child’s tribal membership status and the interest of the

Tribe in the proceeding. The unfortunate reality is that

child welfare systems across the country are failing the

children in their care, limiting the information available to courts. The deplorable condition of many states’

child welfare systems is exemplified by Plaintiff State

of Texas, where a federal court found that the state’s

failure to keep children safe from harm “shock[ed] the

conscience” and caused children to “age out of care

more damaged than when they entered.” M.D. v. Abbott, 152 F. Supp. 3d 684, 700, 823 (S.D. Tex. 2015).

Texas falsely claims that ICWA harms children, when

in fact its own child welfare infrastructure has been

found to lack basic elements required to keep all children—including Indian children—safe. ICWA assists

state courts by ensuring that they have the information

and guidance needed to make sound, individualized

determinations in Indian children’s best interests.

---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

4

ARGUMENT

I.

ICWA SAFEGUARDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS AT STAKE IN CHILD WELFARE

PROCEEDINGS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN.

ICWA establishes minimum federal standards

consistent with constitutional requirements applicable

to state welfare proceedings that ensure the system

protects the well-being of children when state intervention is necessary. The Constitution prohibits unwarranted state intervention in the family and the family’s

right to raise children in accordance with its own culture, traditions and religion. These bedrock principles

not only protect parents, but also promote the well-being of children, whose best interests are served by

maintaining the integrity of the family. See Br. of Casey

Family Programs, et al. as Amici Curiae 17–18. The

state may therefore intervene to remove a child from

parental custody only after making a specific determination that the child is unsafe. The “best interest”

standard alone is not enough to overcome the weighty

constitutional interest in the parent-child relationship.

ICWA was developed in response to and in accordance with this constitutional doctrine. It establishes

sensible procedures and standards to ensure the constitutional rights of Indian children are protected and

the children’s best interests are promoted. ICWA safeguards Indian children from unwarranted removal

from their families. When removal is necessary, it establishes non-dispositive placement preferences that

provide Indian children the opportunity to be raised in

their communities and remain connected to tribal cultural practices, traditions, and religions.

5

A. The Constitution Protects Families

from Unwarranted State Intervention,

Which Supports Children’s Well-Being.

The Constitution protects children and families

from unwarranted state intrusion in family life. “There

does exist a ‘private realm of family life which the state

cannot enter,’ that has been afforded both substantive

and procedural protection.” Smith v. Organization of

Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816,

842 (1977) (citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S.

158, 166 (1944)); see also Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S.

246, 255 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,

231–33 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651

(1972); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399–401

(1923). “[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody,

and control of their children . . . is perhaps the oldest

of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this

Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). The

core constitutional value protects children who depend

on the care of their parents as well as the rights of parents as decision-makers. This constitutional interest is

so great that it is entitled to protection even after the

involvement of the state has strained family relationships. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753–54 (1981)

(“If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of

their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State

moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.”).

The Constitutional interest of parents in the relationship with their children includes the family’s right

to “bring up children” in accordance with its own

6

culture, traditions, and religion. See Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. at 399; see Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.

510, 534–35 (1925) (holding that the “liberty of parents

and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”). This right protects children by ensuring their

care and connection with their communities. It also

provides an important protection for families to impart

traditions and values free from state intrusion. The diversity of traditions and values is core to our democratic traditions.3 For example, Amish families have

the right to educate their children to honor a unique

“traditional way of life . . . shared by an organized

group, and intimately related to daily living.” Yoder,

406 U.S. at 216. And multilingual parents have the

right to educate their children to learn their native languages. Meyer, 262 U.S. at 401.

B. The Constitution Limits the Circumstances Under Which the State May Remove a Child from Parent Custody.

Because the Constitution protects the relationship between parent and child, whether the state may

3

The National Association of Counsel for Children’s forthcoming

Red Book provides an overview of how this Court’s “strong respect for

family integrity” serves as “a tool to protect a diverse society.” Josh

Gupta-Kagan, Nat’l Ass’n of Counsel for Child., The Constitutional

Right to Family Integrity, in Child Welfare Law and Practice: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies in Abuse, Neglect, and

Dependency Cases §§ 1.4, 1.5G, 1.6 (4th ed. forthcoming 2022); see also

Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-04 (1977) (describing

families as the means through which “we inculcate and pass down

many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural”).

7

intervene to remove a child from a parent’s care is a

fundamentally different inquiry than other types of

child custody determinations.4 Plaintiffs’ amici incorrectly suggest that children can and should be removed

from their parents’ custody based merely on a showing

that removal would be in “the best interest of the

child.” Br. of Goldwater Inst., et al. as Amici Curiae 28–

29. Plaintiffs’ amici claim that ICWA overrides the best

interests standards adopted by states and “deprives atrisk children of the legal protections they need.” Id.

But as this Court explained in Reno v. Flores, the subjective “best interest rule” is not the applicable standard when determining whether to remove a child from

parental custody:

“The best interests of the child,” a venerable

phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a

proper and feasible criterion for making the

decision as to which of two parents will be

accorded custody. But it is not traditionally

the sole criterion—much less the sole constitutional criterion—for other, less narrowly

channeled judgments involving children,

where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. Even if it

were shown, for example, that a particular

couple desirous of adopting a child would best

provide for the child’s welfare, the child would

nonetheless not be removed from the custody

4

ICWA applies to foster care placements, termination of parental rights, pre-adoptive placements, and adoptive placements.

25 U.S.C. § 1903(1). It does not cover divorce proceedings or custody disputes between two parents. Id.

8

of its parents so long as they were providing

for the child adequately.

507 U.S. 292, 303–04 (1993) (citing Quilloin, 434 U.S.

at 255) (emphasis in original).

The Constitution does not permit courts to remove

children and dissolve family ties to match children to

the “best” resources or to intervene simply because a

parent’s care does not conform to a court’s view of ideal

parenting practices. Rather, the Constitution “strictly

limit[s] the authority of the state to remove a child

from the care of a parent” as the state only “has an interest in safeguarding children from serious harm.”

Restatement (First) of Child. & the L. § 2.40 (Am. L.

Inst., Tentative Draft No. 4, 2022) (emphasis added).

When articulating the standard for removal, “many

[state] statutes use language such as: imminent risk;

risk of harm; imminent risk of severe harm; immediate

physical danger; threat of harm; threat of imminent

harm. . . . [but t]he critical question remains whether

or not the child is safe, regardless of the terms in [the]

statute.” Therese Rowe Lund & Jennifer Renne, Child

Safety: A Guide for Judges and Attorneys, American

Bar Association, 2 (2009) (emphasis in original); see,

e.g., Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.101 (providing for removal if “immediate danger to the physical health or

safety of the child”). In addition, because “the state has

an obligation, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment” to

protect “the integrity of the parent-child relationship,”

courts have a responsibility to create responsive plans

and provide necessary resources to keep families together. Restatement (First) of Child. & the L. §§ 2.30

9

cmt. a, 2.40 cmt. a (Am. L. Inst., Tentative Draft No. 4,

2022).

ICWA’s active efforts and qualified expert witness

provisions help safeguard this directive, requiring the

state to respect the integrity of the family unless a

child is unsafe.

C. ICWA Preserves the Constitutional Right

to Family Integrity by Preventing Unwarranted Removals.

ICWA is consistent with well-established constitutional principles safeguarding the parent-child relationship. Within those limitations, it provides tailored

protections that reflect the historical treatment of Indian families and children, the sovereignty of tribes,

and the special protection owed to children. ICWA protects families from “unwarranted” removals, 25 U.S.C.

§ 1901(4), by establishing standards and procedures

designed to ensure that Indian children are removed

from their parents only when necessary to safeguard

them from serious harm, and that families are reunified when possible. ICWA prohibits removal of an Indian child into state custody or termination of parental

rights unless the state court finds that “active efforts

have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of

the Indian family and that these efforts have proved

10

unsuccessful.”5 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (“active efforts provision”). An Indian child may be removed to state custody or have parental rights terminated only upon a

showing that remaining in parental custody “is likely

to result in serious emotional or physical damage to

the child,” supported by testimony by a qualified expert

witness. Id. § 1912(e), (f ) (“qualified expert witness

provision”).6

ICWA’s safeguards to prevent the break-up of the

Indian family, and to reunify families when possible,

are consistent with well-established constitutional law.

If temporary removal from parental custody is warranted, ICWA’s direction to provide “remedial services

and rehabilitative programs” continues to protect the

right to family integrity and the best interests of Indian children. Id. § 1912(d). These protections ensure

that the relationship between the parent and child is

preserved when possible, and that it is severed only

within the bounds of the Constitution. Information

published by U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services confirms that, consistent with ICWA, the first

goal of child welfare is to reunite children with their

5

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the active efforts provision does not impair or prevent emergency removals. 25 U.S.C.

§ 1922.

6

ICWA provides for appropriate standards of proof at each

stage of a dependency case. In order to place an Indian child in

foster care, this showing must be supported by “clear and convincing evidence,” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e), while termination of parental rights requires “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” id.

§ 1912(f ).

11

families as soon as possible.7 The field has developed

an array of practices and strategies to provide reunification supports for families.8 ICWA’s standards and

procedures safeguard the constitutional right to family

integrity and promote the best interests of the child by

serving this purpose.

D. ICWA Preserves the Constitutional Right

to Family Integrity by Prioritizing Placement with Extended Family and Other

Tribal Members.

If temporary or permanent removal from parental

custody is warranted, ICWA promotes the right to family integrity by prioritizing placement with extended

family and other tribal members.9 This prioritization

helps protect the child when removal occurs.

When Indian children require foster care, or preadoptive, or adoptive placements, ICWA’s non-dispositive

placement preferences promote the right to family integrity and the “stability and security of Indian Tribes

and families.” 25 U.S.C. § 1902. Prioritizing placement

with extended family and other caregivers identified

7

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for

Children & Families, Children’s Bureau, Reunifying Families,

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/reunification/; see

also Br. of Casey Family Programs, et al. as Amici Curiae 18–19.

8

Id.

9

ICWA further protects Indian children’s right to family integrity by ensuring that their families and Tribes have notice of

their welfare proceedings and can exercise due process rights. 25

U.S.C. § 1912(a).

12

by the Indian child’s Tribe maintains a network of familiar relationships, maximizing continuity and protecting children facing the trauma of family separation.10

See Br. of Casey Family Programs, et al. as Amici Curiae 20–21. A significant body of research supports the

importance of preserving family integrity for children.

Developmental research firmly establishes the importance of maintaining a network of relationships. Id.

24–25 (discussing stability and long-term benefits of

placement with child’s kin and community). ICWA

aligns with social science demonstrating that Indian

children benefit from intergenerational relationships.11

ICWA recognizes the important support that Tribes

and tribal members can provide to Indian children.

ICWA’s placement preferences also protect the

family’s right to “bring up children” in accordance with

its own tradition and religion by preserving, when the

family so desires, connection to the cultural and religious traditions unique to each Indian child’s Tribe

and, when that is not possible, to other Indian families

who share the experience of being members of Indian

10

American Bar Association Resolution 118 2019A § VI.i.

(2019) (“Decades of research confirms that children who cannot

remain with their parents thrive when raised by relatives and

close family friends, known as kinship care. Children in foster

care with relatives have more stable and safe childhoods than

children in foster care with non-relatives, with greater likelihood

of having a permanent home.”).

11

Carmella B. Kahn, et al., American Indian Elders’ Resilience: Sources of Strength for Building a Healthy Future for Youth,

23 Am. Indian & Alaska Native Mental Health Rsch. 117, 123–25

(2016).

13

Tribes.12 See Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399; Yoder, 406 U.S. at

216. Moreover, by seeking to preserve, where possible,

an Indian child’s connection to his or her Tribe, ICWA

safeguards Indian children’s access to the unique

rights and benefits conferred by tribal membership

that are grounded in the Constitution.13

II.

ICWA ALIGNS WITH STATE COURTS’ EFFORTS TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS

OF INDIAN CHILDREN.

State courts are charged with the complex task of

balancing the rights and interests of the child, parents,

state, and in the case of Indian children, the Tribe, to

make decisions about children’s lives. As described

above, these decisions are circumscribed by constitutional protections for the family, particularly when a

child’s removal from that family is contemplated.

Within these constitutional limitations, state courts

12

If one or more of the Indian child’s parents does not wish

for a child to maintain this connection, this would constitute

“good cause” to depart from the placement preferences. 25 C.F.R.

§ 23.132(c).

13

See, e.g., Br. of Family Defense Attorneys as Amici Curiae

21–22 (showing that ICWA’s tribal notification and intervention

provisions result in jurisdictional choice benefiting parents); Br.

of Indian Tribes and Tribal and Indian Organizations as Amici

Curiae 28–29 (discussing this Court’s recognition of tribal membership as fundamental to tribal sovereignty), 29–31 (describing

how placement with Indian family protects child’s personal identity as Indian); Br. for Members of Congress as Amici Curiae 15,

18–19 (describing benefits of federal trust relationship with Indian children, including employment and educational support);

see also infra Section II.B.

14

are also guided by numerous state and federal laws,

which direct courts to take specific considerations into

account when determining what outcome is in a child’s

best interest. Nearly every state has a statute articulating the core values that guide decision-making in

child welfare matters. And twenty-two states and the

District of Columbia have enacted statutes that enumerate specific factors that state courts should consider when analyzing a child’s best interest. Congress

likewise has created similar guidelines and presumptions in generally applicable federal laws regulating

the child welfare system, including in Titles IV-E

and IV-B of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.

§§ 672(a)(2)(A)(ii), 671(a)(15), (19), (29). Within these

parameters, ICWA provides guidance for making nuanced decisions about child placements that serve the

best interests of Indian children.

Contrary to Plaintiffs and their amici, ICWA is not

at all inconsistent with the best interest analysis that

states would otherwise undertake. Indeed, the guiding

principles that animate ICWA—promoting family integrity, placement with extended family, and maintaining community and culture—are the very same factors

that state statutes and other federal law already direct

courts to consider when determining a child’s best interests. See infra Section II.A. ICWA is simply a specific application of regular child welfare practice for

children who—unlike other youth in the child welfare

system—have a particular legal status as a result of

their tribal affiliation. And it is an interpretation that

states have embraced. Many states have affirmed the

15

legality of ICWA and incorporated its protections into

their own state law, with some establishing even

higher standards of protection. See infra Section II.B.

In child welfare and adoption matters involving Indian

children, ICWA helps state courts get these highstakes and challenging decisions right.

A. State Best Interest Factors Are Aligned

with ICWA.

Consistent with its goal of protecting the best interests of Indian children, ICWA’s provisions reflect

the same factors that states direct their courts to

consider when making best interests determinations.

Twenty-two states—including Texas—and the District

of Columbia have enacted statutes directing state

courts to consider enumerated factors when making

best interest determinations.14 The factors identified

by these state statutes align with ICWA’s fundamental principles: preserving family integrity, prioritizing

14

See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Children’s Bureau, Determining the Best Interests of the Child 2 (June 2020),

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf; see also

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-719; Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722; D.C.

Code § 16-2353; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.810; Ga. Code Ann. § 15-1126; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2; 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/1-3(4.05);

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-2201(b); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620.023; Me.

Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(2)-(3); Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-525(f )(1);

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 1; Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.23; Nev.

Rev. Stat. § 128.005(2)(c); N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1); Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414(D)(1); Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.137(1); S.D.

Codified Laws § 26-7A-56; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i); Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15A, § 3-504(c);

Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3; Wis. Stat. § 48.426(2)-(3).

16

placement with relatives, and maintaining community

and culture.

Family Integrity: ICWA’s “overriding purpose

is to protect, preserve, and advance the integrity of Indian families.” Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian

Law § 11.01 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2019) (“Cohen’s

Handbook”); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1902. ICWA promotes

family integrity by establishing a high threshold for

removing a child from parental custody (through active efforts and qualified expert witness requirements)

and by prioritizing placement with family (through the

non-dispositive placement preferences). See supra Sections I.C-.D.

Family integrity likewise is a critical consideration in the majority of relevant state statutes, including among states that do not enumerate specific factors

in their best interests inquiry but include reference to

this principle in their legislative purpose statement. At

least twenty-six states and four territories prioritize

family integrity as a guiding principle in their statutes or regulations.15 And several states guard against

15

See Ala. Code § 12-15-101(b)(1); Alaska Stat. § 47.05.065(4);

Am. Samoa Code Ann. § 45.0102(a)(1)-(3); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

§ 16000(a)-(c); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-102(1); Ga. Code Ann. § 1511-1; 19 Guam Code Ann. § 5129; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2; Idaho

Code § 16-1601; Ind. Code § 31-34-19-6; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 382201(b); Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4003; Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-103;

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.443; Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101; Neb. Rev.

Stat. § 43-533; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:2(III); N.J. Stat. Ann.

§ 30:4C-1(a) to (b), (f ); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-1-3; N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 7B-100; N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1); Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-1102(B); P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 1, § 421; R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-72-2(1) to (2);

17

government intrusion in family life by including family

integrity as a specific factor to be considered as part of

a court’s best interest determination.16 Twelve states

guide courts to determine whether a noncustodial parent or relative is a suitable placement for the child

prior to seeking alternative placements.17

Federal law likewise emphasizes the importance

of family preservation and preventing removal to improve permanency,18 and research consistently demonstrates the value of kinship placements in ensuring

stability and reducing moves between temporary

placements.19 The Restatement confirms that the

S.C. Code Ann. § 63-1-20(d); Utah Code Ann. §§ 80-2a-201(1), (3),

(7), 80-3-302(7)(d); V.I. Code Ann. tit. 5, § 2501(e); Wash. Rev.

Code § 13.34.020; W. Va. Code § 49-1-105; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 143-201.

16

E.g., N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(d); Haw. Rev. Stat.

§ 587A-2(2).

17

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-514.02; Ark. Code Ann. § 927-355(a)(1)(A); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 19-3-403, 19-3-508(1)(b); Fla.

Stat. Ann. §§ 39.401(2)(a)(3), 39.5085; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 41-3101(3) to (5), 41-3-439(1); N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 1017, 1055-b; N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 7B-505; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5153.161; 42 Pa. Cons.

Stat. § 6351; Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-302; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33,

§§ 5307-5308; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-208.

18

See, e.g., Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. §§ 627(a), 629, 671(a)(15); see also U.S. Dep’t of Health

& Human Servs., Children’s Bureau, Achieving Permanency for

the Well-Being of Children and Youth 3–4 (2021), https://www.

acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/im2101.pdf (providing

federal best practice guidance for Titles IV-B and IV-E implementation that “are intended to preserve a child’s family and support

meaningful efforts towards reunification”).

19

Josh Gupta-Kagan, Confronting Indeterminacy and Bias

in Child Protection Law, 33 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. (forthcoming

18

state’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify

the family when a child is placed in foster care is the

core of the child welfare system and rooted in the Constitution. Restatement (First) of Child. & the L. § 2.50

(Am. L. Inst., Tentative Draft No. 4, 2022).

Placement with Relatives: If temporary or

permanent removal from parental custody is warranted, ICWA directs state courts to prioritize, but

does not mandate, placement with extended family

members. See supra Section I.D.; see also In re Dependency of K.W., 504 P.3d 207, 219 (Wash. 2022) (recognizing legislative findings that “placement with relatives

will very often support the child’s best interests”).

In this way, ICWA is consistent with the law in

most states and with other federal law. A majority of

states—including Texas—express preference in statute for the placement of a child with relatives,20 and a

2022) (manuscript at 26); see also Eun Koh, Permanency Outcomes of Children in Kinship and Non-kinship Foster Care: Testing the External Validity of Kinship Effects, 32 Child. & Youth

Servs. Rev. 389, 390 (2010); Marc A. Winokur et al., Matched

Comparison of Children in Kinship Care and Foster Care on Child

Welfare Outcomes, 89 Fams. in Soc’y: J. Contemp. Soc. Servs. 338,

341–42 (2008).

20

See Ala. Code § 38-12-2(b); Alaska Stat. § 47.14.100(e);

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-514.02; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355; Cal.

Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.3; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-403; Conn. Gen.

Stat. § 17a-101m; Del. Code Ann. tit. 31, § 356; Fla. Stat. Ann.

§§ 39.521(3), (8), 39.401(2); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 15-11-211, 15-11135; 19 Guam Code Ann. §§ 13317, 13324; Haw. Rev. Stat.

§§ 587A-9 to -10; Idaho Code § 16-1629(11); 20 Ill. Comp. Stat.

505/7; Ind. Code § 31-34-4-2; Iowa Code § 232.84; Kan. Stat.

Ann. § 38-2255(d); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620.090; La. Stat. Ann.

19

number of states include this preference in their statutory guidance for determining a child’s best interests.21 Federal law also supports and incentivizes

placement with relatives and kin.22 The American Bar

Association (ABA) suggests that state courts should

preference placement with relatives, and, if the state

must assume custody, emphasizes the importance of

respecting family integrity and minimizing disruption

to the child’s family and community ties by prioritizing

“kinship care.”23

§ 46:286.1; Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4062(4); Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law

§ 5-534(c); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 23(c); Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 722.954a; Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.212, subd. 1, 259.77; Miss. Code

Ann. § 43-15-13; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.565; Mont. Code Ann. § 413-439; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(2)(a);

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-12.1; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-21; N.Y.

Fam. Ct. Act § 1017; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-505; Ohio Admin. Code

5101:2-42-05; Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204; Or. Rev. Stat.

§ 419B.192(1); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6351; R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-1112.2; S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2320; S.D. Codified Laws § 26-7A19.1; Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-2-403; Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 264.752;

Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-302; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, §§ 5307-5308;

Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-281; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 13.34.130,

13.34.060; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-208.

21

See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16000(a); Fla. Stat. Ann.

§ 39.810; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2; Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 4003;

Minn. Stat. § 260C.193, subd. 3(a); Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101;

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533.

22

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 627(a), 671(a)(19), (29), 675(1)(F); see also

Achieving Permanency, supra note 18, at 11, 17–18.

23

ABA Resolution 118 2019A § VI.i. (2019), https://www.

americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/annual-2019/

118-annual-2019.pdf; see also National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges, Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving

Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 137–38 (2016).

20

Maintaining Community and Culture: ICWA

recognizes the importance of “the retained practices

that give content to the child’s tribal identity and engender the special connection that each native nation

has with its land and environment.” Cohen’s Handbook

§ 11.01. ICWA therefore directs state courts to prioritize placement with other members of a child’s Tribe

or, when unavailable, with other Indian families. See

supra Section I.D. ICWA’s notice provision also ensures that Indian families and Tribes are properly informed of the relevant child welfare proceedings. See

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853, 867–69

(Wash. 2020) (holding that the notice requirement

gives tribes opportunity to intervene and prevents improper removal “without respect for social and cultural

differences”).

Numerous state statutes also direct courts to consider community placement and the child’s cultural

needs and identity when making best interests determinations.24 For example, Georgia directs courts to

consider the “child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious,” Ga. Code Ann. § 15-1126(12), and Hawaii requires that “[f ]ull and careful

consideration [ ] be given to the religious, cultural,

and ethnic values of the child’s legal custodian” when

determining a child’s placement. Hawaii Rev. Stat.

§ 587A-2. Further, seven states have statutes allowing

24

See Cal. Fam. Code § 175(a); Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-26(12);

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-2; 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/1-3(4.05)(f );

Iowa Code § 232B.2; Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-101(1)(f ); N.M. Stat.

Ann. § 32A-1-3(d).

21

members of an Indian child’s Tribe to be considered

“extended family members” for the purposes of placement.25

B. States Have Affirmed and Codified

ICWA’s Protections into Their State

Laws.

States have recognized the alignment between

ICWA and child welfare law by adopting and building

upon ICWA to serve the best interest of Indian children. Through both case law and statutes, a number of

states have affirmed and strengthened ICWA’s protections at the state level. Nine state courts, including

that of Plaintiff Amicus State of Oklahoma, have

expressly upheld the constitutionality of ICWA.26 In

addition, ten states that are home to a significant population of Indian children, including Oklahoma, have

affirmatively incorporated comprehensive state Indian Child Welfare Acts into their own child welfare

25

See Alaska Stat. § 47.10.990(10); Minn. Stat. § 260C.007,

subd. 26b; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-28-2(F); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B101(15a); Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204(A)(1); Or. Admin. R.

413-120-0730; Or. Rev. Stat. §419B.192(5); Wash. Rev. Code

§ 74.15.020(2)(a)(vi).

26

See In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 635 P.2d

187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981); In re N.B., No. 06CA1325, 2007 WL

2493906 (Colo. App. Sept. 6, 2007); In re Armell, 550 N.E.2d 1060

(Ill. App. Ct. 1990); In re Marcus S., 638 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1994); In

re Miller, 451 N.W.2d 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990); In re A.B., 2003

ND 98, 663 N.W.2d 625; In re Baby Boy L., 103 P.3d 1099 (Okla.

2004); In re Angus, 655 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1982); In re D.L.L.,

291 N.W.2d 278 (S.D. 1980).

22

legislation.27 All ten codify into state law key provisions of ICWA, including the notice, active efforts,

qualified expert witness, and records provisions,28 and

foster and adoptive preferences.29 Some states even require higher standards of procedural protection and

heightened efforts regarding Indian children.30

In short, contrary to claims by Plaintiffs and their

amici that ICWA is harmful to states’ efforts to promote the best interests of children, see Br. for Plaintiff

27

See 2006 Cal. Stat. 6535; Iowa Code § 232B.1; Mich. Comp.

Laws § 712B.1-.41; Minn. Stat. §§ 260.751-.835; Neb. Rev. Stat.

§§ 43-1501 to -1517; N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 32A-28-1 to -42; Okla.

Stat. tit. 10, §§ 40.1-.9; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 419B.600-.665; Wash.

Rev. Code §§ 13.38.010-.190; Wis. Stat. § 48.028.

28

ICWA’s records provision, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1951(a),

requires documentation of each Indian child’s placement to ensure compliance and records availability to both tribes and Indian

children.

29

See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 224.2(c), 224.2(e), 361.7, 224.6,

361.31, 361.31(m), Cal. Fam. Code § 9209; Iowa Code §§ 232B.5,

232B.5(19), 232B.6(5)(b), 232B.9, 232B.9(8); Mich. Comp. Laws

§§ 712B.25(2), 712B.15(2)-(3), 712B.17, 712B.15(2), (4), 712B.35,

712B.23(7), 712B.23; Minn. Stat. §§ 260.761, subd. 2–3, 260.762,

subd. 3, 260.755, subd. 17a, 260.771, subd. 6, 260.755, 260.781,

260.771, subd. 7; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1505(1), (4)-(5), 43-1508,

43-1508(5); N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 32A-28-3(B), 32A-28-15(C) to (E),

32A-28-26(C), 32A-28-17, 32A-28-13(B), 32A-28-6, 32A-28-37,

32A-28-21; Okla. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 40.3(C), 40.5(B), 40.6, 40.9;

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 419B.878, 419B.645, 419B.642, 419B.654(1)(3), 419B.656; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 13.38.070(1), 13.38.130(1)-(3),

13.38.180; Wis. Stat. § 48.028(4)(a), (d)-(e), (7)(f ).

30

In such cases, ICWA provides that the state law should

control. 25 U.S.C. § 1921. See, e.g., Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-4-204(A)

(requiring state agency to verify ICWA applicability within three

months of child in custody).

23

State of Texas 50–51; Br. for Individual Plaintiffs 42,

62, the actions taken by states show exactly the opposite. States have endorsed and built upon ICWA because they find it beneficial. The State of Oklahoma,

for example, has filed an amicus brief urging this Court

to invalidate the protections of the federal ICWA, Br.

of Amici Curiae States of Ohio and Oklahoma Supporting Plaintiffs 5–6, but its actions belie this position: the

Oklahoma Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of ICWA, In re Baby Boy L., 103 P.3d 1099

(Okla. 2004), and the Oklahoma Legislature has

adopted the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act, affirming and codifying into Oklahoma law most of the

protections of ICWA, Okla. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 40.1-.9.

And Plaintiff State of Texas’s Department of Family

Protective Services submitted comments during rulemaking asserting that it “fully supports the Indian

Child Welfare Act” and has “worked collaboratively . . .

to develop best practices that will inure to the benefit

of tribal children and families.” Letter from John J.

Specia, Jr., Comm’r, Tex. Dep’t of Fam. and Protective

Servs., to Elizabeth Appel, U.S. Dep’t of Interior (May

19, 2015), https://tinyurl.com/3mhja9er (“[O]ur commitment to both the letter and spirit of ICWA is

clear.”).

III. ICWA PROVIDES CRITICAL INFORMATION

AND SUPPORT TO STATE COURTS.

From the moment a young person is placed in foster care, everything is at stake—their home, school,

belongings, community, and relationships with family

24

and friends. In short, their future. Judicial officers are

faced with complex, weighty decisions and need more

information—not less—to get it right. Any change to or

limitation on ICWA would inevitably deprive courts of

evidence they need to make these crucial determinations. In matters involving Indian children courts must

consider the effect of the child’s tribal membership and

the Tribe’s interest in the proceeding. ICWA articulates clear procedures to ensure that courts have the

information necessary to protect the specific rights and

interests of Indian children.

ICWA is particularly important in light of the

many practical constraints under which state courts

operate. An appropriate best interest determination

requires a “holistic examination of all of the relevant

circumstances that might affect the child’s situation.”

In re B.T.B., 436 P.3d 206, 219 (Utah Ct. App. 2018),

aff ’d on other grounds, 472 P.3d 827 (2020) (emphasis

added) (citation omitted). ICWA eases that complex

calculation by providing for tribal advocates and expert witnesses. This support is invaluable to judges

and child welfare professionals who may lack sufficient

knowledge of tribal law, government, and culture to appropriately evaluate circumstances specific to Indian

children. For state child welfare systems that far-toofrequently fail to protect the rights of children in their

care, ICWA improves the quality of the information

provided to courts responsible for making best interests determinations. Amici’s extensive on-the-ground

experience providing representation in child welfare

proceedings confirms that ICWA is an important tool

25

for eliciting the information that courts need to adjudicate the particular rights and interests of Indian

children.

A. State Child Welfare Systems Across the

Country Face Persistent Challenges

and Resource Constraints that Compromise the Information Provided to

State Courts in Individual Proceedings.

ICWA is crucial in light of the pressures facing

child welfare systems across the country. Judges depend on the information provided to them to inform

their decisions regarding the vast number of children

interacting with child protective services; in 2020,

about 3.1 million children received an investigation or

alternative response.31 State child welfare systems

across the country face real challenges that compromise the quality and availability of the information

necessary to make decisions that protect the rights of

the participants in the case and that are in children’s

best interests. Some of these challenges include high

caseloads, lack of appropriate training, and high turnover among social workers; poor data collection and

utilization; lack of appropriate judicial training and

31

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration

for Children and Families, Child Maltreatment 2020 19 (2022),

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

26

education on issues facing children in the child welfare

system; and unavailable and inadequate placements.32

Plaintiff State of Texas falsely claims that ICWA

harms children, see Br. for Plaintiff State of Texas 6–8,

56, when in fact its own child welfare infrastructure

has been found to lack basic elements required to keep

all children—including Indian children—safe. The U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services periodically reviews state child welfare systems to ensure

that states comply with minimum federal child welfare

requirements.33 Texas was not in substantial conformity of with any of the seven outcomes, which focus on

safety, permanency, and the well-being of children.34

Like most other states, the Texas child welfare

system has been subject to litigation due to its failures

32

See, e.g., National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 30 (2016).

33

See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration

for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family

Services Review Round 3 Report for Legal and Judicial Communities (January 2021).

34

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for

Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews, Fact Sheet for Tribal Child Welfare Officials 2,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cfsr_tribal_

factsheet.pdf (emphasis added); see U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Administration for Children and Families, Children’s

Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews Texas Final Report

3–4 (2016).

27

to adequately protect children in state custody.35 In

2015, a federal district court judge determined that

Texas’s failure to keep children safe from an unreasonable risk of harm “shock[ed] the conscience” and therefore constituted a violation of the children’s substantive

due process rights. M.D. v. Abbott, 152 F. Supp. 3d 684,

697, 700, 828 (S.D. Tex. 2015). The court found that in

Texas, “foster children often age out of care more damaged than when they entered.” Id. at 823. In the same

case in 2018, the Fifth Circuit held that Texas’s inadequate monitoring and oversight policies, coupled with

overburdened caseworkers, caused children in the

Texas foster care system to be exposed to unreasonable

harm. M.D. by Stukenberg v. Abbott, 907 F.3d 237, 267

(5th Cir. 2018); see also M.D. by Stukenberg v. Abbott,

929 F.3d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2019). Despite years of court

oversight, Texas has repeatedly failed to protect the

children in its custody. Most recently, court monitors

have found that children continue to be placed at substantial risk of harm. The monitors reported that during 2021, “25% of the children that [the Department of

Family and Protective Services] identified as victims of

sexual abuse were victimized or re-victimized after entering foster care.”36

35

Douglas E. Abrams, Susan V. Mangold & Sarah H. Ramsey, Children and the Law: Doctrine, Policy and Practice 440 (7th

ed. 2020).

36

Fourth Report of the Monitors at 12, M.D. by Stukenberg

v. Abbott, No. 2-11-CV-00084 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (filed June 2, 2022)

(emphasis added).

28

The systemic failures of the child welfare system

in Texas and other states make the ICWA’s guidance

and support all the more necessary to protect Indian

children.

B. ICWA Ensures that State Courts Have

Critical Information Necessary to Promote the Constitutional Rights and

Best Interests of Indian Children.

State courts need accurate and complete information to protect the rights of all parties with an interest in child welfare proceedings and to make correct

determinations regarding the best interests of the

child. Unique information is required in child welfare

proceedings involving Indian children because tribal

membership can impact the child’s best interest in a

variety of ways. But many state court judges and others in the child welfare system are unfamiliar with Indian tribal law, government, and culture. See, e.g., In re

Dependency of G.J.A., 489 P.3d 631, 643, 647 (Wash.

2021) (holding that the department’s referrals failed to

provide active efforts for reunification and were “completely lacking of any evidence regarding culturally appropriate services”).

Tribal notice and participation in child welfare

proceedings is necessary because Tribes possess critical information that might not otherwise be available to the courts or child welfare professionals.37 For

37

Adrea Korthase, Sophia I. Gatowski & Mark Erickson,

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Courts: A Tool for Improving

29

example, Tribes have sole authority over membership

determination. The proper identification of a child’s

tribal membership thus depends on collaboration with

the Tribe.38 And as ICWA recognizes, tribal law defines

the relationships that state courts must take into account when determining a child’s placement, such as

the definition of an “extended family member.” 25

U.S.C. § 1903(2). Tribal representatives’ input is crucial to provide the court with knowledge about tribal

resources for families and the potential harms the

child may sustain from removal39 or a culturally inappropriate placement.40 Tribal participation also ensures that courts have access to information regarding

family histories, support for families specific to the Indian child’s Tribe, and tribal cultural knowledge41 regarding “the special connection that each native nation

Outcomes for American Indian Children and Families, National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 6–7 (2021).

38

Terry L. Cross & Robert J. Miller, The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and Its Impact on Tribal Sovereignty and Governance, in Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30 13,

14–15 (Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al. eds., 2009).

39

American Bar Association, Children’s Rights Litigation

Committee, Trauma Caused by Separation of Children from Parents: A Tool to Help Lawyers 6–10 (2020).

40

ICWA Compliance Task Force Report to the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Children’s Justice 72–73 (2017),

https://theacademy.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/icwacompliance-task-force-final-report-2017.pdf.

41

See Carol L. Tebben, In Defense of ICWA: The Constitution,

Public Policy, and Pragmatism, in Facing the Future: The Indian

Child Welfare Act at 30 270, 285 (Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al.

eds., 2009).

30

has with its land and environment.” Cohen’s Handbook § 11.01. These considerations—each an essential

part of a court’s “best interest” determination for an

Indian child—can only be undertaken with input from

the Tribe.

ICWA’s expert witness requirement functions similarly. Qualified expert witnesses “should have specific

knowledge of the Indian tribe’s culture and customs”

as evidenced in the preference for a member of the Indian child’s tribe or another tribe who is “recognized by

the tribal community as knowledgeable in tribal customs as they pertain to family organization and childrearing practices.” 80 Fed. Reg. 10157 (Feb. 25, 2015);

see 25 C.F.R. § 23.122. At a minimum, qualified expert

witnesses have expertise specific to Indian children

and Tribes beyond the typical social worker. See, e.g.,

Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 17a; Iowa Code § 232B.10.

They are uniquely positioned to speak to specific tribal

customs and practices pertaining to family organization and childrearing.42 The qualified expert witness

provision helps “to provide the Court with knowledge

of the social and cultural aspects of Indian life to diminish the risk of any cultural bias.” In re N.L., 754

P.2d 863, 867 (Okla. 1988). ICWA improves a court’s

adjudicatory process by providing necessary information to permit a court to consider tribal affiliation

42

Suzanne L. Cross et al., Working on the Front Lines: The

Role of Social Work in Response to the Indian Child Welfare Act

of 1978, in Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30

114–125 (Matthew L.M. Fletcher et al. eds., 2009).

31

as a factor in the best interest determination. See In re

Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 635 P.2d 187,

189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

Ensuring that Tribes have sufficient notice and

opportunity to participate in child welfare proceedings

also benefits Indian children by enabling Tribes to offer services that a state agency may not be able to otherwise, such as the assistance of elder tribal mentors

to children, culturally informed contribution to safety

plans, culturally responsive counseling, or trauma-informed practices based in tribal traditions.43 Tribalstate coordination further benefits the court’s and

agency’s treatment of each child by improving the

quality and process of protective services, development

and implementation of case plans, and placement process.44

For amici, lawyers who represent children in

state courts, ICWA is critical to providing quality

representation to Indian children. ICWA is essential

because attorneys for children, like other participants

in the child welfare system, may not have significant

43

ICWA Compliance Task Force Report, supra note 40, at

34, 20, 43; see U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Children’s

Bureau, Developing a Trauma-Informed Child Welfare System

(May 2015), https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/trauma_

informed.pdf.

44

Tebben, supra note 41, at 281–82 (citing improvements in

Wisconsin after DCF-tribal efforts to improve coordination and

ICWA compliance).

32

experience representing Indian children.45 Information

obtained pursuant to the requirements of ICWA can

inform the representation, helping lawyers for children ensure that the child is in an appropriate placement and receiving all benefits of tribal enrollment.

Without ICWA, Amici fear there will be a devastating

roll back of decades of progress made towards fair consideration of the rights and best interests of Indian

children. For example, without ICWA, practitioners

fear that there will be additional litigation over issues

now resolved by ICWA mandates delaying permanency

for Indian children. As an Amicus with extensive experience representing Indian children explained it:

ICWA is the definition of best interests for Indian children.

---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

45

Many Indian children lack representation altogether because fourteen states—including Plaintiff State of Texas—do not

guarantee children a right to counsel through the pendency of

child welfare proceedings. See National Association of Counsel

for Children, State Models of Children’s Legal Representation

(May 2022), https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.198.124/zmc.c18.

myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Model-of-Rep-Chart2022.pdf.

33

CONCLUSION

Amici Children’s Rights Organizations respectfully request that this Court uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Respectfully submitted,

KIM DVORCHAK

ALLISON GREEN

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN

899 N. Logan St., Suite 208

Denver, CO 80203

(303) 864-5320

Kim.Dvorchak@

NACCchildlaw.org

KATHRYN A. EIDMANN,

Counsel of Record

TARA FORD

SARAH CAMISCOLI

PUBLIC COUNSEL

610 S. Ardmore Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90005

(213) 385-2977

keidmann@

publiccounsel.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae