Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_37_issue_1?pg=41
Timestamp: 2018-12-16 01:04:41
Document Index: 599416780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 111', '§ 671', '§ 47', '§ 232', '§ 260', '§ 1912']

36 Children’s Legal Rights Journal [Vol. 37: 1 2017]
ICWA differs from state law in many ways, with the result that Indian children are
treated differently than children of other ethnicities in cases that are otherwise the same. Given
that this law deals with the welfare of abused or neglected children, these differences can have a
profound impact on the lives of America’s most vulnerable citizens.
The most significant of these differences involve efforts to reunify families after children have been taken into state custody. State law, as well as the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act,188 requires that child-welfare officials make “reasonable efforts” to reunify families in such cases.189 But the rules are different for Indian children: in their cases, state officials must make “active efforts” toward reunification.190 Although some state courts regard these terms as synonymous,191 most have concluded that “active efforts” imposes a greater obligation on the government to reunite children with families after a removal than does the “reasonable efforts” standard.192 The BIA’s Guidelines also take this position,193 although its new regulations make no explicit determination.194
As a practical matter, the difference can be enormous. “Active efforts” is typically
distinguished from “passive efforts,” such as making counseling services or similar opportunities
188 Pub. Law. 105-89, § 111 Stat. 2129 (1997).
189 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)( 15); ALASKA STAT. § 47. 10.086 (2016); IOWA CODE § 232.102( 5)(b); MINN. STAT. § 260.012(a).
190 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (2012) (emphasis added).
191 See, e.g., In re Adoption of Hannah S., 142 Cal. App. 4th 988, 998 (2006) (“Active efforts are essentially equivalent to reasonable efforts to provide or offer reunification services in a non-ICWA case and must likewise be tailored to the circumstances of the case.”).
192 See, e.g., In re Shayla H., 22 Neb. App. 8 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014), aff’d, 289 Neb. 473 (2014); People ex rel. A.R., 310 P.3d 1007, 1015 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012); In re JL, 770 N.W.2d 853, 865 (Mich. 2009); In re Welfare of Children of S.W., 727 N. W.2d 144, 150 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007); In re A.N., 106 P.3d 556, 560– 61 (Mont. 2005); In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 865 (2008); In re J.S., 177 P.3d 590, 593 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008); Dep’t of Human Services v. K.C.J., 228 Or. App. 70, 74 (2009); State ex rel. C.D., 200 P.3d 194, 205 (Utah. Ct. App. 2008). See also Megan Scanlon, From Theory to Practice: Incorporating the “Active Efforts” Requirement in Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 43 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 629, 646–54 (2011).
193 Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. at 10150–51, A. 2( 15).
194 The regulations chose simply to omit reference to “reasonable efforts,” rather than to compare “active” and “reasonable” efforts. 81 Fed. Reg. at 38791.