Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-0574 In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Arianna R.G., a Person Under the Age of 18 v. Neal J.G.

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2003//

02-0574 In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Arianna R.G., a Person Under the Age of 18 v. Neal J.G.

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2003//

Listen to this article

“Although the ICWA provides broad protections, there are limits to its applicability. Before the notice requirement of the ICWA can be invoked, the circuit court must first determine if it has reason to know the child is an ‘Indian child’ as defined by the ICWA. As noted above, the ICWA defines ‘Indian child’ as ‘any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.’

“Neal has never asserted that the children are members of a federally recognized tribe or that they are eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe and are biological children of a tribe member. He has never stated that he has tribal membership.

“Rather, the record establishes that at the first motion hearing Neal averred that his children have ‘Indian heritage’ and asserted that through the children’s great-great-grandmother their ‘ancestry stems from the Ojibwa Tribe in Marinette, Wisconsin.’ The court initiated further inquiry in an [unsuccessful] attempt to identify and clarify tribal membership. …

“In sum, we affirm the order of the circuit court because we conclude that the information before the circuit court was too vague for the court to have reason to know that each of Neal’s children met the definition of Indian child under the ICWA. Because the information was insufficient to show that the ICWA applied in this case, no notice was required. Accordingly, but with different rationale, we affirm the order of the circuit court terminating Neal’s parental rights to his children.”

Order affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J..” I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the information before the circuit court was insufficient to trigger the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). I conclude, as did the circuit court, that the limited information at the circuit court’s disposal gave it reason to know that an Indian child might be involved and that notice was therefore required under the ICWA.”

Sheboygan County, Murphy, J., Bradley, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Timothy A. Provis, Madison

For Respondent: Mary T. Wagner, assistant district attorney, and Robert J. Wells, Jr., district attorney, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests