Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/330531264/R-P-S-P-v-Los-Angeles-Dept-of-Children-Family-Services
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 20:19:55
Document Index: 560352649

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1401', '§ 1901', '§ 1903', '§ 1903', '§ 1903', '§ 1911', '§ 1912', '§ 1912', '§ 1912', '§ 1912', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 671', '§ 1996', '§ 361', '§ 366', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1901', '§ 1901', '§ 1912', '§ 1911', '§ 1915', '§ 1903', '§ 1401', '§ 1', '§ 1911', '§ 1912', '§ 1912', '§ 1912', '§ 1915', '§ 671', '§ 361', '§ 361', '§ 671', '§ 1912', '§ 1903', '§ 1912', '§ 366', '§ 1912', '§ 1915', '§ 1996', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1903', '§ 1', 'art 1']

R.P. & S.P. v. Los Angeles Dept. of Children & Family Services | Native Americans In The United States | Amicus Curiae
Descripción: This California case — which has become notorious as the “Lexi” case — involves the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, pronounced “ick-wa”), a federal law that dictates how courts decide foster care, ...
This California case — which has become notorious as the “Lexi” case — involves the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, pronounced “ick-wa”), a federal law that dictates how courts decide foster care, adoption, and child welfare cases involving children of Native American ancestry. ICWA overrides the “best interests of the child” standard that state courts would normally use, and requires that children of American Indian background be placed with foster or adoptive parents of Indian ancestry (even of different tribes) rather than with parents of other races. ICWA doesn’t just govern reservations, either — it applies to children who have no cultural connection to a tribe and have never even visited a reservation. That’s the case with Lexi, a 6-year old girl whose last full-blooded Indian ancestor was her great-great-great-great grandfather. Because that’s enough to qualify her as an “Indian child” under ICWA, the Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma was given power to take her from the California foster family with whom she lived for four years, and to place her with another family in Utah. The California courts ruled for the tribe, finding that although Lexi might experience severe trauma from being separated from her foster parents — whom she calls “Mommy” and “Daddy” — that wasn’t enough to block the tribe’s dictates. California courts have ruled that, for children of other races, “the child’s best interest becomes the paramount consideration after an extended period of foster care.” But in Lexi’s case, the court ruled that a separate-but-equal standard applies: an Indian child’s best interest, it said, is only “one of the constellation of factors” judges should consider. This case highlights some of the worst aspects of ICWA — a law passed with good intentions, but which in practice makes it harder to protect Indian children from abuse and neglect, or to find them the permanent, loving adoptive homes they need. Joining the Goldwater Institute, Cato filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to review the case and address ICWA’s constitutionality. The Court should find that its explicit system of racial segregation is unconstitutional and that all children should receive the same legal protections, regardless of race.
-----------------------------------------------------------------R.P. and S.P., DE FACTO PARENTS,
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, J.E.,
THE CHOCKTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA,
AND ALEXANDRIA P., A MINOR UNDER
THE AGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS,
-----------------------------------------------------------------On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The Court Of Appeal Of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF GOLDWATER
INSTITUTE AND THE CATO INSTITUTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------TIMOTHY SANDEFUR*
SCHARF-NORTON CENTER FOR
Amici Goldwater Institute and Cato Institute
have received consent to file this amicus brief from Petitioner and from Respondents Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Minor A.P.,
and Father J.E., but counsel for Respondent Choctaw
Nation has declined to respond to amici’s repeated requests for consent, thus necessitating this motion.
Amici believe the questions presented in this petition go to the heart of our constitutional protections for
equal protection and due process, as well as this nation’s moral obligation to ensure full and non-discriminatory protection for the rights of children of Native
American ancestry. At issue is a federal law that establishes a de jure system of racial discrimination in foster care and adoption proceedings involving children
who are, for biological reasons alone, eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. That system makes it
harder for state child services workers to rescue children of Native American ancestry from abusive or neglectful homes, or to find them loving, permanent
adoptive homes. Simply because these children have
an Indian ancestor, they are deprived of the right to an
individualized determination of their case, of the right
to equal, non-discriminatory treatment, and of other
WHEREFORE, the Goldwater Institute and the
Cato Institute seek leave to file the accompanying brief
In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552,
2565 (2013), this Court declared that it “would raise
equal protection concerns” if the Indian Child Welfare
Act were used “to override . . . the child’s best interests”
simply “because an ancestor – even a remote one – was
an Indian.” The court below ruled that the Act establishes a separate but equal – actually separate and
substandard – “best interests” test in Indian child welfare cases. This means that while the child’s best interest is “the paramount consideration” in foster care or
adoption cases involving children of all other races, In
re Guardianship of Ann S., 202 P.3d 1089, 1106 n.19
(Cal. 2009), courts should only “take an Indian child’s
best interests into account as one of the constellation of
factors” when “the best interests of an Indian child are
being considered.” In re Alexandria P., 1 Cal. App. 5th
331, 351 (2016) (emphasis added).
Does this segregated best-interests standard violate equal protection?
Question Presented ................................................
Table of Authorities ................................................
Interest of Amici Curiae .........................................
Introduction and Summary of Reasons for Granting the Petition ....................................................
Reasons for Granting the Petition .........................
I. The Decision Below Entrenches a Literal
System of Separate-But-Equal for Indian
Children .......................................................
A. ICWA Imposes Separate Rules for “Indian Children” That Often Harm the
Children it is Supposed to Protect ........
1. ICWA’s Race-Based Jurisdictional
Distinction ........................................
2. “Active Efforts” to Reunify Abused
Indian Children With Abusive Parents ................................................... 10
3. Higher Standards of Evidence for
Foster Care and Termination of Parental Rights ..................................... 12
4. Race-Based Foster and Adoption Placement Preferences .............................. 14
B. The Segregation Imposed by ICWA is a
Racial, Not Political, Distinction ........... 16
II. The Need for This Court’s Guidance on
ICWA is Urgent ............................................ 19
A. Lower Courts Have Struggled Unsuccessfully to Balance the Conflicting Interests at Issue in ICWA Cases ............ 19
B. Indian Children Are in Desperate
Need ....................................................... 21
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552
(2013) ....................................................... 3, 20, 21, 22
Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954) .............7
C.V.C. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 3d 909
(1973) .........................................................................3
Carter v. Washburn, No. 15-cv-1259 (D. Ariz.
July 6, 2015) ..............................................................1
Department of Human Servs. v. K.C.J., 207 P.3d
423 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) ............................................10
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) .............26
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Dep’t of Child Safety,
379 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) ..........................1
Guardianship of Kassandra H., 64 Cal. App. 4th
1228 (1998) .......................................................... 3, 24
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81
(1943) .........................................................................6
In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543 (Kan. 2009)........................20
In re Abbigail A., 375 P.3d 879 (Cal. 2016) ................18
In re Adoption of Hannah S., 142 Cal. App. 4th
988 (2006) ................................................................20
In re Adoption of J.R.D., Okla. Civ. App. No.
113,228 (unpublished) (Apr. 21, 2015)....................12
In re Alexandria P., 1 Cal. App. 5th 331 (2016)...........4
In re Alicia S., 65 Cal. App. 4th 79 (1998) .................20
In re Amy M., 232 Cal. App. 3d 849 (1991) ................12
In re Bridget R., 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 (1996) .... 13, 19
In re Guardianship of Ann S., 202 P.3d 1089
(Cal. 2009) ....................................................... 3, 4, 24
In re Interest of Shayla H., 846 N.W.2d 668 (Neb.
App. 2014), aff ’d, 855 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2014).......11
In re Interest of Shayla H., Doc. JV13 (Juv. Ct. of
Lancaster Cnty., Neb. May 1, 2015)........................11
In re J.D.M.C., 739 N.W.2d 796 (S.D. 2007) .................9
In re J.S., 177 P.3d 590 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008)...........10
In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal. 4th 398 (1994) ................ 24, 25
In re Matter of A.P., California Supreme Court
No. S233216 (2016) ...................................................2
In re T.A.W., 2016 WL 6330589 (Wash. Oct. 27,
2016) .................................................................... 2, 12
In re Vincent M., 150 Cal. App. 4th 1247 (2007) .......20
In re Santos Y., 92 Cal. App. 4th 1274 (2001)............20
In the Matter of Baby Boy L., 103 P.3d 1099
(Okla. 2004) .............................................................20
International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S.
310 (1945) ..................................................................9
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir.
2004) ........................................................................16
Malabed v. North Slope Borough, 335 F.3d 864
(9th Cir. 2003)..........................................................16
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) ............................................8
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ......... 16, 17, 18
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) .......................18
People ex rel. J.S.B., Jr., 691 N.W.2d 611 (S.D.
2005) ........................................................................10
Renteria v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok
Indians, No. 16-cv-1685 (E.D. Cal. July 21,
2016) ...................................................................... 2, 9
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) ........................17
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ............. 13, 14
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) .....................18
State ex rel. C.D., 200 P.3d 194 (Utah Ct. App.
2008) ........................................................................10
United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641
(1977) ........................................................... 16, 17, 18
United States v. Bryant, 136 S. Ct. 1954 (2016)..... 6, 15
Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v.
LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................9
Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 8051 (9th Cir.
1997) ..........................................................................9
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444
U.S. 286 (1980) .................................................. 6, 8, 9
8 U.S.C. § 1401(b) ..........................................................7
25 U.S.C. § 1901 ........................................................ 1, 3
25 U.S.C. § 1903 ............................................................7
25 U.S.C. § 1903(1) ......................................................12
25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) .................................................. 7, 17
25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) .................................................... 5, 8
25 U.S.C. § 1912 ............................................................5
25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) .................................................. 8, 10
25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) .................................................. 8, 13
25 U.S.C. § 1912(f ) .................................................. 8, 13
25 U.S.C. § 1915 ............................................................6
25 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (b)...................................... 8, 14, 15
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) .................................................10
42 U.S.C. § 1996b ........................................................14
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5 ...................................10
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.21 .................................13
2010 Census, Table 19, American Indian and
Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and
Puerto Rico: 2010 ....................................................19
CHARLES L. GLENN, AMERICAN INDIAN/FIRST NATIONS SCHOOLING: FROM THE COLONIAL PERIOD
TO THE PRESENT 196 (2011) .....................................15
Daniel Heimpel, L.A.’s One-And-Only Native
American Foster Mom, CHRONICLE OF SOCIAL
CHANGE, June 14, 2016 ............................................22
Elizabeth Stuart, Native American Foster Children Suffer Under A Law Originally Meant
to Help Them, PHOENIX NEW TIMES, Sept. 7,
2016 .........................................................................21
Gina Miranda Samuels, Ambiguous Loss of
Home: The Experience of Familial (Im)permanence Among Young Adults with Foster Care
Backgrounds, 31 CHILDREN & YOUTH SERV.
REV. 1229 (2009)......................................................23
Joan Heifetz Hollinger, Beyond the Best Interests of the Tribe: The Indian Child Welfare Act
and the Adoption of Indian Children, 66 U.
DET. L. REV. 451, 453 (1989) ...................................21
John Iwasaki, Native American, Black Kids
More Likely to End Up in Foster Care, SEATTLE
POST-INTELLIGENCER, June 26, 2008 .......................14
Mark Flatten, Death on a Reservation (Goldwater Institute 2015) .......................................... 2, 11
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) .............................11
NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY, THE NEW TRAIL OF
TEARS: HOW WASHINGTON IS DESTROYING
AMERICAN INDIANS 145-68 (2016) ............................21
Puntam-Hornstein, et al., A Birth Cohort Study
of Involvement with Child Protective Services
before Age 5: California (USC Children’s Data
Network, 2014) ........................................................22
Recent Demographic Trends in Foster Care (Office of Data, Analysis, Research, & Evaluation
Data Brief 2013-1, Sept. 2013) ...............................23
Timothy Sandefur, Escaping the ICWA Penalty
Box: In Defense of Equal Protection for Indian
Children, 37 CHILD LEG. RTS. J. ___ (forthcoming 2017) ....................................................................2
VERA I. FAHLBERG, A CHILD’S JOURNEY THROUGH
PLACEMENT 23-24 (1991) .........................................24
Virginia L. Colin, Infant Attachment: What We
Know Now at ii (U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 1991) ....................................................23
CHEROKEE CONST. art. IV § 1 ........................................7
CHOCTAW CONST. art. II § 1 .........................................17
Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 80 Fed. Reg.
10,146-02 (2015) .................................................. 5, 10
The Goldwater Institute (“GI”) was established in
1988 as a nonpartisan public policy and research foundation dedicated to advancing the principles of limited
government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility through litigation, research papers, editorials,
policy briefings and forums. Through its Scharf-Norton
Center for Constitutional Litigation, GI litigates and
files amicus briefs when its or its clients’ objectives are
GI’s Equal Protection for Indian Children project
is devoted to reforming the federal and state legal
treatment of Native American children subject to the
Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et
seq. GI is currently litigating a civil rights case in the
Arizona Federal District Court which contends that
ICWA violates the fundamental requirements of equal
treatment under law, respect for individual rights, and
federalism. Carter v. Washburn, No. 15-cv-1259 (D.
Ariz. July 6, 2015). GI has also represented parties
in cases involving ICWA (Gila River Indian Cmty. v.
Dep’t of Child Safety, 379 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2016)), and appeared as amicus curiae in state and
federal courts in cases involving ICWA (see, e.g., In
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(6), counsel for amici
curiae affirms that no counsel for any party authored this brief in
whole or in part and that no person or entity, other than amici,
their members, or counsel, made a monetary contribution to the
preparation or submission of this brief. The parties’ counsel of record received timely notice of the intent to file the brief, and the
parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
re T.A.W., 2016 WL 6330589 (Wash. Oct. 27, 2016);
In re Matter of A.P., California Supreme Court No.
S233216 (2016); Renteria v. Shingle Springs Band of
Miwok Indians, No. 16-cv-1685 (E.D. Cal. July 21,
GI scholars have also published ground-breaking
research on the well-intentioned but profoundly flawed
workings of ICWA. See, e.g., Mark Flatten, Death on
a Reservation (Goldwater Institute 2015);2 Timothy
Sandefur, Escaping the ICWA Penalty Box: In Defense
of Equal Protection for Indian Children, 37 CHILD LEG.
RTS. J. ___ (forthcoming 2017).3
research foundation dedicated to advancing the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited
government. Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies
was established in 1989 to help restore the principles
of limited constitutional government that are the foundation of liberty. Toward those ends, Cato publishes
books and studies, conducts conferences, produces the
annual Cato Supreme Court Review, and appears as
amicus curiae in cases of constitutional significance affecting the right of all Americans to equal treatment
Available at http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/
constitutional-rights/equal-protection/death-on-a-reservationinteractive-pdf/.
Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2796082.
Three years ago, this Court warned that it “would
raise equal protection concerns” if ICWA, 25 U.S.C.
§ 1901 et seq., were used as a “trump card” to “override
... the child’s best interests” “solely because an ancestor
– even a remote one – was an Indian.” Adoptive Couple
v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 2565 (2013).
Lexi has lived with Petitioners for four of the six
years of her life. She has no cultural, social, or political
connection to the Choctaw tribe, and has never resided
or been domiciled on tribal lands. Her only connection
to the tribe is biological: her great-great-great-great
grandparent was a full-blooded Choctaw Indian. If
Lexi were of any other ethnicity, Petitioners would be
free to seek adoption, and California courts would
apply the ordinary “best interests of the child” test in
deciding whether to grant that petition. C.V.C. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 3d 909, 914 (1973) (“In adoption proceedings the child’s best interest is the primary
concern.”). And Lexi’s “fully developed interest in a
stable, continuing, and permanent placement with
[her] fully committed care-giver[s]” would be given extraordinary weight in the best-interests determination. In re Guardianship of Ann S., 202 P.3d 1089, 1106
(Cal. 2009) (citing Guardianship of Kassandra H., 64
Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1239 (1998)).
But solely on account of the DNA in her cells,
ICWA subjects Lexi to a separate-but-equal set of rules
– actually, separate and substandard – that empowers
the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to force her removal
from the Petitioners, and to place her with non-Native
non-relatives in Utah, simply because the tribal government deems that placement preferable.
In upholding that action, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the “best interests” test for Indian
children is different than the “best interests” test that
applies to all other children. Where black, white, Asian,
or Hispanic children are concerned, their individual
best interests are paramount. In re Guardianship of
Ann S., 202 P.3d at 1106, n.19. But “[w]hen the best
interests of an Indian child are being considered,”
courts must compromise those interests, and “take an
Indian child’s best interests into account as one of the
constellation of factors.” Alexandria P., 1 Cal. App. 5th
at 351 (emphasis added). Nor is that all. ICWA mandates that state officials treat children of biological Indian ancestry differently from children of all other
races. Among other things, an Indian child is:
Deprived of any individualized determination of her fate. ICWA requires courts to
presume that it is in an Indian child’s best interests to be placed with families of Native
American ethnicity, in all but rare circumstances. This means that custody, foster care
placement, and adoption decisions are based
on factors irrelevant to a child’s individual
needs. In fact, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Guidelines for the application of ICWA make
clear that courts should not engage in “an
independent consideration of the best interest
of the Indian child,” because ICWA’s preferences automatically “reflect the best interests
of an Indian child in light of the purposes of
the Act.” 80 Fed. Reg. 10,146-02, 10,158,
F.4(c)(3) (2015). In other words, ICWA imposes a blanket race-based presumption for
all children of Native American ancestry that
override an Indian child’s specific interests.
Given less protection against abuse and
neglect. ICWA purports to protect the “welfare” of children, but actually makes it more
difficult to protect them from abuse or neglect.
For example, it requires state officials to make
“active efforts” to return abused or neglected
children to families that have mistreated
them and forbids termination of parental
rights unless the likelihood of abuse is established “beyond a reasonable doubt” by “expert
witnesses.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912. As explained below, these rules make it harder to protect Indian children from abusive families than
children of any other race.
Subject without notice or choice to the
personal jurisdiction of Indian tribal authorities anywhere in the nation. A tribe is
authorized under 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) to take
child custody cases out of state court and
transfer them to tribal court, if the child is
an “Indian child” – without any regard to
whether tribal court jurisdiction satisfies the
requirements of fair play and substantial
justice. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980).
Required to be placed with “Indian families” because of their race. ICWA’s foster
and adoption placement preferences (25 U.S.C.
§ 1915) dictate a series of race-based preferences under which an Indian child must be
placed with Indian families regardless of tribe
– so that, say, a Yakima child must be placed
with a Seminole family, or a Navajo child with
a Ute family. These preferences are based on
the racist conception of generic “Indianness”
which has no foundation in history and does
not serve Congress’s trust obligation toward
tribes. United States v. Bryant, 136 S. Ct.
1954, 1968 (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring).
In a nation “founded upon the doctrine of equality,”
which regards “[d]istinctions between citizens solely
because of their ancestry” as “odious,” Hirabayashi v.
United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943), such separate,
race-based rules are intolerable. This Court should
grant certiorari to review the constitutionality of ICWA’s
placement preferences for children racially classified
THE DECISION BELOW ENTRENCHES A
LITERAL SYSTEM OF SEPARATE-BUTEQUAL FOR INDIAN CHILDREN
Children it is Supposed to Protect
It goes without saying – but should not go unsaid
– that the Constitution mandates equal legal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their racial ancestry.4
Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).
ICWA, however, establishes a separate set of rules for
foster care, adoption, and protection for abused or neglected children, if those children are deemed to be “Indian children” under 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).5
These separate rules include, but are not limited
to: different jurisdictional standards that authorize
tribal courts to decide cases without the “minimum
All Native Americans are, of course, citizens of the United
States. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b).
Biology is the determinative factor for “Indian child” status
under Section 1903. A child, who, like the historical figure Sam
Houston, was adopted into the Cherokee tribe as a minor, would
not qualify as an “Indian child” under ICWA because: (a) he would
not be eligible for tribal membership, since he lacks a direct
ancestor on the Dawes Rolls, see CHEROKEE CONST. art. IV § 1, and
(b) because he is not a biological child of a tribal member. A child
who is fully acculturated to a tribe – speaks the language, practices the religion, knows and follows the customs – is not an
“Indian child” under ICWA if that child lacks the biological prerequisites.
contacts” constitutionally necessary for personal jurisdiction, see id. § 1911(b); rules requiring that abused
and neglected children be reunited with the birth parents that have abused or neglected them, see id.
§ 1912(d); greater evidentiary burdens imposed on
child protection workers who seek foster care for Indian children, id. § 1912(e), or to terminate parental
rights in preparation for adoption, id. § 1912(f ); and
race-based placement preferences for foster care or
adoption of Indian children. Id. § 1915(a), (b).
1. ICWA’s Race-Based Jurisdictional Distinction
In all but rare circumstances, Section 1911(b)
mandates that cases involving Indian children who are
not domiciled on, or residents of, reservations be transferred out of the state courts where they would ordinarily be heard, and into tribal court. This rule applies
regardless of where the child resides, and regardless of
whether that child, or any adult involved, has had any
of the “minimum contacts” required for the tribal forum to have personal jurisdiction. See World-Wide
Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 291-92. Tribal courts obviously
have personal jurisdiction over cases involving children who are domiciled on reservation, see Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 53
(1989), but ICWA purports to go further, and to grant
tribes personal jurisdiction over children who are not
domiciled on reservation, solely in consequence of the
child’s genetics. This is akin to saying that Maine
courts may decide California lawsuits arising from car
accidents in California between California residents,
simply because the great-great-grandfather of one
party was born in Maine.
Tribal courts are subject to the “minimum contacts” requirement just as other courts are. See, e.g.,
Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir.
1997); Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v.
LaRance, 642 F.3d 802, 820 (9th Cir. 2011); In re
J.D.M.C., 739 N.W.2d 796, 811 (S.D. 2007). Yet ICWA
disregards that requirement.
Thus, for instance, in a case now pending in California, the Miwok tribal court asserted jurisdiction to
determine the custody of three children whose parents
died in a car accident, despite the fact that neither
parent, nor the children, had ever been domiciled
on reservation, solely on account of the children’s
genetics. See Renteria v. Shingle Springs Band of
Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-cv-01685-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.
July 21, 2016).
Due process of law simply “does not contemplate”
that a court “may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual” who has “no contacts, ties,
or relations” to that court’s jurisdiction. International
Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945).
Where a person has “carr[ied] on no activity whatsoever” in the forum, and has “avail[ed] [herself ] of none
of the privileges and benefits of [the forum’s] law,”
the forum cannot exercise personal jurisdiction; to do
so would fail the test of “fair play and substantial
justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 292, 295.
Jurisdiction based on a child’s biological ancestry obviously fails that test, too.
2. “Active Efforts” to Reunify Abused Indian Children With Abusive Parents
California law, like the law of many states, and
like the Adoption and Safe Families Act, requires that
state child protection officers make “reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunify families before seeking
to terminate parental rights (as required to clear a
child for adoption). 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15); Cal. Welf. &
Inst. Code § 361.5(a). “Reasonable efforts” are not required, though, when “aggravated circumstances,” are
present – such as serious crimes by the parent, or
abandonment, or chronic abuse. Id. § 361.5(b); 42
U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(D).
For Indian children, however, the rules are different. ICWA requires state officials to make “active
efforts” to reunify Indian children with their families
before taking steps toward adoption. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d).
Although ICWA does not define “active efforts,” courts
and the BIA have declared that it means more than
reasonable efforts, see, e.g., In re J.S., 177 P.3d 590, 593
(Okla. Civ. App. 2008); Department of Human Servs. v.
K.C.J., 207 P.3d 423, 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009); State ex
rel. C.D., 200 P.3d 194, 205 (Utah Ct. App. 2008); Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. at 10,150-51, A.2(15), and that “active efforts” is not excused in cases of aggravated
circumstances. See, e.g., People ex rel. J.S.B., Jr., 691
N.W.2d 611, 618 (S.D. 2005). See further 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).
In practical terms, this means that state officials
seeking to rescue Indian children from dangerous
homes must go above and beyond to return those children to the very families that have abused them – more
so than in cases involving children of other ethnicities
– before those officials may try to find them safe, adoptive homes. Combined with the higher evidentiary
standards discussed below, this rule means that Indian children must be more abused more consistently
than children of other races before they can receive protection.
To cite just one example, in In re Interest of Shayla
H., 846 N.W.2d 668 (Neb. App. 2014), aff ’d, 855 N.W.2d
774 (Neb. 2014), Nebraska courts ruled that officials
failed the “active efforts” standard when removing
three Sioux teenagers from the custody of their
abusive father and his abusive girlfriend. Thus the
officials were forced to return the girls to the father’s
custody – whereupon the abuse worsened to the
degree that a state court once again removed them,
noting that they had “experienced lifetimes of trauma”
in the interim. In re Interest of Shayla H., Doc. JV13
(Juv. Ct. of Lancaster Cnty., Neb. May 1, 2015) at 18.6
See further Mark Flatten, Death on a Reservation at
Available at https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/
PDF7_Shayla.pdf.
24-267 (citing multiple cases of abuses resulting from
“active efforts” requirement).
The “active efforts” provision is frequently used by
ex-spouses to block adoption when a custodial parent
remarries. ICWA does not apply to divorce proceedings,
25 U.S.C. § 1903(1), but a birth parent who loses custody in a divorce can later use ICWA to block adoption
when the former spouse remarries, and this often happens. Indeed, Oklahoma and Washington courts have
recently allowed non-Indian birth fathers to use ICWA
to bar adoption when Indian birth mothers married
and their new husbands sought to adopt the stepchildren. In re T.A.W., 2016 WL 6330589; In re Adoption of
J.R.D., Okla. Civ. App. No. 113,228 (unpublished) (Apr.
21, 2015).8 In step-parent adoption cases, ICWA does
not prevent the breakup of Indian families – it prevents the formation of Indian families.
California law, like the law of most states, provides
that the evidentiary burden for establishing that a
child is a dependent of the court is preponderance of
the evidence. In re Amy M., 232 Cal. App. 3d 849,
Available at https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/
cms_page_media/2015/8/14/Final%20Epic%20pamplet.pdf.
Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/legalbrief/JRD+Decision.
859 (1991). For Indian children, however, ICWA imposes the clear-and-convincing standard. 25 U.S.C.
§ 1912(e). As with “active efforts,” this differential
treatment makes it harder to rescue Indian children
from abusive or neglectful homes.
As for proceedings to terminate parental rights –
often necessary before an abused or neglected child can
be adopted – California, like most states, sets clearand-convincing as the standard of proof, see Cal. Welf.
& Inst. Code § 366.21, but ICWA requires the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt, based on expert witness testimony by experts in tribal culture, that the
child is likely to suffer serious harm if parental rights
are not terminated. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f ). This standard
is so demanding that it is literally easier to put a defendant on death row than to place an Indian child in
a safe, permanent adoptive home.
This is why, as California courts have acknowledged, ICWA causes “the number and variety of adoptive homes that are potentially available to an Indian
child [to be] more limited than those available to nonIndian children.” In re Bridget R., 41 Cal. App. 4th
1483, 1508 (1996).
In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), this
Court refused to adopt the “beyond a reasonable doubt”
test for the termination of parental rights, noting
that such a stringent requirement might “erect an unreasonable barrier to state efforts to free permanently
neglected children for adoption.” Id. at 769.9 That concern is a reality in the case of ICWA.
A disproportionately large number of Native
American children are in foster care. See, e.g., John
Iwasaki, Native American, Black Kids More Likely to
End Up in Foster Care, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER,
June 26, 2008.10 This is the unfortunate but predictable consequence of the fact that ICWA makes it exceedingly difficult for Indian children to find permanent
4. Race-Based Foster and Adoption Placement Preferences
Finally, ICWA imposes a set of placement mandates for Indian children subject to foster care or adoption. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (b). These rules
require that, whereas a white, black, Hispanic, or
Asian child, or child of any other race, can be adopted
by a permanent loving family of any race – indeed, it is
illegal to deny or delay an adoption proceeding on racial grounds, see 42 U.S.C. § 1996b – a child deemed an
The Court observed that ICWA was the “only analogous
federal statute of which we are aware” that “permits termination
of parental rights solely upon ‘evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt,’ ” and that “Congress did not consider ... the evidentiary
problems that would arise if proof beyond a reasonable doubt
were required in all state-initiated parental rights termination
hearings.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 749-50, 769.
Available at https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/
native-american-kids-still-disproportionately-represented-in-fostercare/.
“Indian child” must be placed in foster care with: a
member of extended family as designated by the child’s
tribe, or, failing that, with a foster home approved by
the child’s tribe, or, if none is available, in “an Indian
foster home,” and, if those options all fail, with an institution “approved by an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). In adoption cases, courts must place a child
with a member of the child’s extended family, as designated by the tribe, or, failing that, with a member of
the child’s tribe, and if none are available, with “other
Indian families.” Id. § 1915(a).
Note that these preferences for “an Indian” or
“other Indian” families apply without regard to tribe.
ICWA thus requires that a child of, say, Yakima heritage be placed with a family of Seminole ancestry, or a
Navajo child with a Ute family, rather than with white,
black, Asian, or Hispanic families, regardless of the
cultural differences and even historical enmity between these tribes. ICWA’s preferences are predicated
not on political or cultural tribal affiliation, but on the
racist conception of generic “Indianness.” They “treat[ ]
all Indian tribes as an undifferentiated mass” without
regard to the “varied origins ... and different patterns
of assimilation and conquest” in tribal history. Bryant,
136 S. Ct. at 1968 (Thomas, J., concurring). But “[c]ontinuing to emphasize generic ‘Indian’ separateness detached from specific tribal identities and cultures ...
has the effect of reviving the assumptions about fundamental racial differences that have been so profoundly harmful to the education of Indian youth.”
CHARLES L. GLENN, AMERICAN INDIAN/FIRST NATIONS
SCHOOLING: FROM THE COLONIAL PERIOD
SENT 196 (2011).
Racial, Not Political, Distinction
In Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), this
Court upheld a statute that treated Indians differently
from non-Indians, holding that the distinction was a
political one, subject to rational basis review, rather
than a racial one subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 555.
This is often cited as meaning that all laws that
differentiate between Indians and non-Indians are
shielded from scrutiny as race-based statutes. That is
incorrect. See Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271,
1279 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We reject the notion that distinctions based on Indian or tribal status can never be racial classifications subject to strict scrutiny.”); Malabed
v. North Slope Borough, 335 F.3d 864, 868 n.5 (9th Cir.
2003) (“the Borough argues that statutes enacted for
the benefit of tribal members do not violate any federal
or state antidiscrimination law.... This argument puts
more weight on Mancari than it can bear.”).
Mancari, in fact, took care not to decide whether a
law “directed towards a ‘racial’ group consisting of ‘Indians’ ” would violate the Constitution. 417 U.S. at 553
n.24. Three years after Mancari, the Court again emphasized in United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641
(1977), that it was not addressing whether the Constitution authorizes a law that applies to people based on
whether they are “racially to be classified as ‘Indian[ ].’ ” Id. at 646 n.7. And Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S.
495 (2000), distinguished Mancari on the grounds that
the statute at issue in Rice “single[d] out ‘identifiable
classes of persons ... solely because of their ancestry or
ethnic characteristics,’ ” id. at 515 (citation omitted),
rather than because of their membership in a political
organization. In short, Mancari and its progeny held
that laws that apply to adults based on their choice to
join or remain members of a political institution – the
tribe – impose only political classifications subject to
rational basis review. Those cases expressly did not declare that laws that single out a racial class consisting
of Indians are immune from strict scrutiny.
ICWA, unlike the laws at issue in Mancari and Antelope, applies not to adults or tribal members, but to
children who are “eligible for membership in a tribe,”
and who have at least one biological parent who is a
tribal member. 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).11 Eligibility for
tribal membership is, almost without exception, determined exclusively by biological ancestry.12 Thus, unlike
This means that people adopted into a tribe are not subject
to ICWA, regardless of their cultural or political affiliation with
the tribe, solely because they are not biological children of tribal
The Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma, from which Lexi is partly
descended, requires no specific amount of Indian blood, but requires direct lineal descent from a signer of the 1906 Dawes Rolls.
See CHOCTAW CONST. art. II § 1. Biological ancestry – DNA – is
therefore the sole factor required for tribal citizenship. Political
affinity is not a consideration.
the laws at issue in Mancari and Antelope, ICWA singles out identifiable classes of persons solely because
of their ancestry, cf. Rice, 528 U.S. at 515, and is directed towards a racial group consisting of Indians.
Mancari, 417 U.S. at 553 n.24.13
The California Supreme Court recently emphasized the distinction between tribal membership,
which is wholly a matter of tribal law, and “Indian
child” status under ICWA, which is a matter of federal
law, and therefore subject to constitutional limits. See
In re Abbigail A., 375 P.3d 879, 885-86 (Cal. 2016).
Tribes may adopt whatever membership criteria they
choose, of course, including biological ones, just as private social organizations may choose to base membership on race. But the state and federal governments
are constitutionally forbidden from imposing legal consequences that are triggered by such racial criteria.
See Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the
law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”); cf.
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 663 (1944) (political
parties may exclude racial groups, but where “statutory system for the selection of party nominees ...
makes the party ... an agency of the state,” such exclusion is unconstitutional).
Even if that were not clear, the fact that ICWA also requires that a child be the biological child of a tribal member
makes undeniable that biological ancestry is the sole and dispositive criterion for ICWA’s application. A child legally adopted into
the tribe is not subject to ICWA.
ICWA creates a race-based, not political, classification.
THE NEED FOR THIS COURT’S GUIDANCE
ON ICWA IS URGENT
A. Lower Courts Have Struggled Unsuccessfully to Balance the Conflicting Interests
at Issue in ICWA Cases
Courts in many states – particularly California,
which has the nation’s largest Native American population14 – have struggled to resolve the problems inherent in ICWA. In Bridget R., supra, the court found
ICWA unconstitutional to the degree that it applied
separate rules to children of Indian ancestry who
lack any social or political connection to a tribe. 41
Cal. App. 4th at 1508 (“where such social, cultural or
political relationships do not exist or are very attenuated, the only remaining basis for applying ICWA rather than state law in proceedings affecting an Indian
child’s custody is the child’s genetic heritage – in other
words, race.”).
But rather than declare ICWA facially unconstitutional, the court applied the “Existing Indian Family
Doctrine,” a saving construction whereby ICWA is interpreted as statutorily inapplicable to children who
California has more than 352,000 Native American and
Alaskan Native residents. See 2010 Census, Table 19, American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto
Rico: 2010, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/cph-t/
t-6tables/TABLE%20(19).pdf.
lack social, cultural, or political connections to a tribe.
Id. at 1491-92. Other California courts, however, have
rejected that Doctrine, see, e.g., In re Vincent M., 150
Cal. App. 4th 1247, 1265 (2007); In re Adoption of Hannah S., 142 Cal. App. 4th 988, 996 (2006); In re Alicia
S., 65 Cal. App. 4th 79, 88 (1998), as have courts in several other states. See, e.g., In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543,
549-50 (Kan. 2009); In the Matter of Baby Boy L., 103
P.3d 1099, 1103-06 (Okla. 2004). The California Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to consider the
question, and the status of the Doctrine remains unsettled there.15
Adoptive Couple seemed to endorse the Doctrine,
holding that the child’s biological ancestry was not sufficient for application of ICWA where there was no Indian family in existence that might be threatened with
“breakup.” 133 S. Ct. at 2562. But the Court did not refer to the Doctrine by name, and, although it observed
that interpreting ICWA so as to override the child’s
best interests “solely because an ancestor – even a
remote one – was an Indian ... would raise equal protection concerns,” id. at 2565, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether biological ancestry is a
constitutional basis for applying ICWA’s separate system of law. As a result, lower courts remain in disarray
as to how to apply ICWA in a constitutional manner.
In 1999, the California Legislature passed a statute apparently with the intent of overruling the Doctrine, but because that
statute simply echoed ICWA’s existing language word-for-word, a
California court later found that it did not overrule the Doctrine,
after all. In re Santos Y., 92 Cal. App. 4th 1274, 1317, 1323 (2001).
In this case, it is necessary to decide that critical question.
B. Indian Children Are In Desperate Need
Native American children are at greater risk of
family breakdown, poverty, addiction, and suicide than
children of any other ethnicity. See generally NAOMI
SCHAEFER RILEY, THE NEW TRAIL OF TEARS: HOW WASHINGTON IS DESTROYING AMERICAN INDIANS 145-68 (2016).
But ICWA’s separate system of race-based law deters
would-be foster and adoptive parents from opening
their homes to Indian children who need safety and
shelter. Because “non-Indians who wish to adopt an Indian child” face a “considerably greater” risk of becoming involved in a lengthy court fight about adoption,
“the ICWA goal of promoting their best interests may
be undermined by the ICWA’s other goal of ensuring
tribal survival.” Joan Heifetz Hollinger, Beyond the
Best Interests of the Tribe: The Indian Child Welfare Act
and the Adoption of Indian Children, 66 U. DET. L.
REV. 451, 453 (1989). See also Adoptive Couple, 133
S. Ct. at 2563-64 (expressing concern that ICWA might
“dissuade” people “from seeking to adopt Indian children,” which would “unnecessarily place vulnerable Indian children at a unique disadvantage in finding a
permanent and loving home.”).
Asked to foster a Native American child, nonNative parents are likely to say “Nope. Nope. Nope.”
Elizabeth Stuart, Native American Foster Children
Suffer Under A Law Originally Meant to Help Them,
PHOENIX NEW TIMES, Sept. 7, 2016.16 See also Adoptive
Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2563-64 (expressing concern that
ICWA might “dissuade” people “from seeking to adopt
Indian children,” which would “unnecessarily place
vulnerable Indian children at a unique disadvantage
in finding a permanent and loving home.”).
This case is a vivid and disturbing example of this
problem. The decision below gives would-be adoptive
parents plenty of reasons not to open their doors to
children of Indian ancestry. Yet the alternatives for
those children are exceptionally few. There is only one
approved Native American foster family in all of Los
Angeles County, with its population of 10 million. See
Daniel Heimpel, L.A.’s One-And-Only Native American
Foster Mom, CHRONICLE OF SOCIAL CHANGE, June 14,
2016.17 Nearly 9 percent of all Native American children born in California are placed in foster care before
the age of 5. Puntam-Hornstein, et al., A Birth Cohort
Study of Involvement with Child Protective Services before Age 5: California (USC Children’s Data Network,
2014) at 9.18
These children need homes – and people like Petitioners are willing to provide them. But ICWA’s various provisions impose a unique obstacle that blocks
Available at http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/nativeamerican-foster-children-suffer-under-a-law-originally-meant-to-helpthem-8621832.
Available at https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news-2/l-a-sone-native-american-foster-mom/18823.
Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/dvis-data/cdn/Cumulative
+Risk+Reports/CDN+California.pdf.
children of Native American ancestry from finding the
stability and permanence they need. A disproportionate number therefore end up in long-term foster care.19
This is particularly harmful to children in Lexi’s
position, who have a psychological need for stability.
Separation from stable homes is traumatic, and can
lead to problems with identity and intimacy, and a
greater risk of delinquency. See Virginia L. Colin, Infant Attachment: What We Know Now at ii (U.S. Dep’t
of Health & Human Servs., 1991)20 (“The importance of
early infant attachment cannot be overstated. It is at
the heart of healthy child development.”). Foster care
experts have emphasized the importance of avoiding
repeated removal or transfer of foster children. See,
e.g., Gina Miranda Samuels, Ambiguous Loss of Home:
The Experience of Familial (Im)permanence Among
Research on the length of time Native American children
spend in foster care is sometimes misleading. Although the Department of Health & Human Services reports that NativeAmerican children spend an average of 21-26 months in foster
care, Recent Demographic Trends in Foster Care (Office of Data,
Analysis, Research, & Evaluation Data Brief 2013-1, Sept. 2013),
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/data_brief_
foster_care_trends1.pdf, such numbers typically count the length
of stay per placement, rather than the total length of a child’s time
in foster care. Thus if a child is moved from one foster home after,
say, six months, to another foster home for three more months,
this is counted as one six-month stay and one three-month stay,
rather than as a single nine-month stay. Given that Indian children are often shuttled between foster homes, their average stay
of foster care is likely mis-measured as a result.
Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/infant-attachmentwhat-we-know-now.
Young Adults with Foster Care Backgrounds, 31 CHILDREN & YOUTH SERV. REV. 1229 (2009)21 (“transitioning
in and out of potential ‘new’ families while in foster
care can create ambiguity and insecurity around their
legitimate familial belonging, feelings that are often
left unresolved or unaddressed both during and after
their stays in foster care.”); VERA I. FAHLBERG, A
CHILD’S JOURNEY THROUGH PLACEMENT 23-24 (1991) (“it
is crucial that the foster care system respond in ways
that help the child develop attachments with their primary caregivers.... Children need ongoing relationships.”).
California courts, recognizing this need, prioritize
the stability and permanence of foster family relationships in the best-interests calculus – in cases involving
non-Indian children. “The idea that children may be
temporarily deposited in the hands of some bailee to be
recovered at will – like an old lamp that one doesn’t
know what to do with, so one puts it in storage – is
contradicted by the cases and common experience.”
Kassandra H., 64 Cal .App. 4th at 1239. Thus, “[a]fter
years of guardianship, the child has a fully developed
interest in a stable, continuing, and permanent placement with a fully committed care-giver.... [T]he child’s
best interest becomes the paramount consideration after an extended period of foster care.” Ann S., 202 P.3d
at 1106 & n.19; see also In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal. 4th 398,
418-19 (1994) (“courts determining a child’s best
Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46495237_
Ambiguous_loss_of_home_The_experience_of_familial_impermanence_
among_young_adults_with_foster_care_backgrounds.
interests ... may place great weight on evidence that
after a substantial period in foster care, the severing of
a bond with the foster parents will cause long-term, serious emotional damage.”).
But the rules are different for children of Indian
ancestry. Given the separate-and-substandard “bestinterests” analysis ICWA imposes, no such “great
weight” was afforded in Lexi’s case. On the contrary,
the court below found that treating this consideration
as paramount would contradict “the overall policy behind the ICWA,” and would amount to “using the best
interests concept as carte blanche ... to depart from the
ICWA’s placement preferences.” 1 Cal. App. 5th at 35152.
What this means becomes clear by contrasting
this case with a case like Jasmon O., supra, in which
the California Supreme Court terminated the birth father’s parental rights over a non-Indian child who had
lived in foster care for seven years, because “the severing of the bond with the foster parents would do serious, long-term emotional damage to [the child].” 8 Cal.
4th at 418. “Children, too, have fundamental rights,”
said the court, “including the fundamental right to ...
‘a placement that is stable [and] permanent.’ Children
are not simply chattels belonging to the parent, but
have fundamental interests of their own that may diverge from the interests of the parent.” Id. at 419 (citations omitted). In Lexi’s case, however, the court
treated the effect of severing her bond with her de facto
parents as of relatively less importance than “the importance of preserving the child’s familial and cultural
connections [with the tribe],” 1 Cal. App. 5th at 351,
and ignored her fundamental right to a placement that
And it did so solely because of her race.
To impose “special disabilities” on people as a consequence of “immutable characteristic[s] determined
solely by the accident of birth” is to “violate ‘the basic
concept of our [legal] system.’ ” Frontiero v. Richardson,
411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (citation omitted). ICWA
places children like Lexi – who have no cultural, social,
or political connection to an Indian tribe, but are only
eligible for membership due to their DNA – into a separate category, governed by different rules, rules that
deprive them of the legal protections they need and to
which they are entitled as American citizens. Given the
disarray in local courts as to the applicability of ICWA,
this Court’s guidance is desperately needed.
Documents Similar To R.P. & S.P. v. Los Angeles Dept. of Children & Family Services
unit 1 mc 2
Key Concept 2 for Notes
History 167 --- Part 1 --- The West
Indian Boyhood Sample
andrew jaxkson final draft