Friday, June 13, 2008, 10:52 AM
By Darwin Danielson
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state’s rules involving the adoption of an Indian child are unconstitutional. The case involves a 20-year-old Sioux City woman who is a member of Tyme Maidu Indian tribe in California.
The woman gave birth to a baby girl in [...]
Filed Tuesday, 11 December 2007
16 Neb. App. 246, __ N.W.2d __A-07-592
SUMMARY: When a motion to transfer to juvenile court is filed, subsequent hearings cannot be held absent a finding of good cause.
A 3(a) petition was filed alleging that the child was a member of an Indian tribe and that parental rights should be terminated [...]
Filed on July 11, 2006
14 Neb. App. 891, 719 N.W.2d 304
SUMMARY: “The stated purposes of the ICWA are best served by allowing parents to raise, in their direct appeal from a termination of parental rights, the issue of the State’s failure to notify the child’s Indian tribe of the termination of parental rights proceedings as [...]
Filed on June 13, 2006
Not designated for permanent publication
Nebraska Court of Appeals, A-05-1409
SUMMARY: A pending motion to transfer in the juvenile court cannot be appealed since there is no final order by which the parents can appeal.
Faren H. was born on June 2, 2005. On June 7, 2005, the state filed a petition to adjudicate [...]
Filed on March 14, 2006
14 Neb. App. 559, 712 N.W.2d 583
SUMAMRY: “In an action for adjudication of Indian children, it is necessary to plead facts under the ICWA.” In this case, the juvenile court committed error when it adjudicated the children under the original petition which did not contain the facts required by ICWA. Also, [...]
Filed on January 31, 2006
14 Neb. App. 453, 709 N.W.2d 676
SUMMARY: In cases where invalidation of previous court orders is sought due to a violation of the ICWA notice provision to the tribe, “it would be unreasonable to impose a time limitation of the § 1914 procedure upon the party claiming lack of notice.” However, [...]
Filed on January 13, 2006
270 Neb. 870, 708 N.W.2d 786
SUMMARY: It is not a violation of due process to have a different burden of proof for the termination of the parental rights to an Indian child than the burden of proof required to terminate parental rights to a non-Indian child, because the “parents of non-Indian [...]
