ILNews

Justices asked to revisit Indian family law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At least one Indiana Court of Appeals judge believes the state’s highest court should revisit how it applies a three-decade old statute to tribal Indian family adoption issues inside Indiana.

Ruling today on the case of In Re The Adoption of D.C. v. J.C. and A.C., No. 49A02-0909-CV-862, the panel unanimously affirmed a Marion County probate judge’s decision to allow a stepfather to adopt an 11-year-old boy who’d lived with him since birth.

The case presented a family law issue about the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901-1963 (1982), which is aimed at protecting the interests of tribal children and promoting stability and security to those tribes and families by minimizing their removal from those environments.

Stepfather J.C. had petitioned Marion Superior Court to adopt D.C., who’d been living with him since birth in 1998 after the mother S.C. had separated from his biological father. Mother and stepfather had custody of the child until the mother’s death in 2005. A few months before that, stepfather had obtained S.C.’s notarized consent to adopt D.C. Stepfather later remarried and his new wife joined the petition, arguing that biological father’s consent wasn’t needed under Indiana state law where they lived because the man hadn’t communicated or provided support significantly through the years.

But biological father contested D.C.’s adoption under ICWA, arguing the law should be applied because he was a member of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, an older son now living with him had enrolled in that tribe, and D.C. would be eligible for enrollment at some point. Another elder child was originally part of this case, but at age 15 that child went to live with biological father and was removed as part of the petition.

Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found ICWA to be inapplicable because there was no “removal” from custody within an Indian family as contemplated by the law, and that the Indiana Supreme Court has found it applies when a tribal Indian child is being removed from an existing Indian environment.

The Court of Appeals found that it was in the child’s best interests to stay with stepfather in Indiana, since he’d cared for D.C. without interruption for the 11 years before this adoption matter. In addition, the court noted that biological father had not objected to custody and had extremely limited contact while accumulating tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support payments. The appellate judges also found biological father’s adoption consent wasn’t required.

Significantly, though, the appellate court declined to accept biological father’s invitation to go against 1988 Indiana Supreme Court precedent in analyzing and evaluating the ICWA application. More than 20 years ago in Matter of Adoption of T.R.M., 525 N.E. 2d 298, 303 (Ind. 1988), Indiana joined other states in how it applies that act to Indian children being removed from their existing environments.

While agreeing with the majority, Judge Michael Barnes wrote a concurring opinion that invited the state’s justices to do exactly that and join more recent national trends in applying the law. In the past decade courts, including those in Kansas and Oklahoma, have overruled the previous ruling that they and Indiana had originally based their applications on.

“In fact, the validity of the existing Indian family doctrine has repeatedly been called into question, and many courts have now abandoned the doctrine,” Judge Barnes wrote. “We do not have the authority to overrule our supreme court, and we must apply the existing Indian family doctrine in this case. However, given the controversy surrounding the existing Indian family doctrine, I encourage our supreme court to revisit its applicability in Indiana.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT