Initial Report and Recommendations - Alaska Department of Law

example, during a protracted negotiation process that culminated in August 1990, theState and several tribes negotiated an ICWA Agreement that was eventually signed by 27tribes. The Agreement, which was negotiated before certain jurisdictional issues hadbeen resolved in John v. Baker 61 and C.R.H., 62 “reserved for future negotiation anddiscussion” issues relating to tribal courts, jurisdiction, and state funding for socialservices and for children placed in foster homes by a tribe. It is time for thosenegotiations and discussions to be continued.Section 1919 of the ICWA provides a mechanism to encourage state-tribalcooperation and collaboration: “States and Indian tribes are authorized to enter intoagreements with each other respecting care and custody of Indian children andjurisdiction over custody proceedings.” Similarly, state law expressly authorizes theDepartment of Health and Social Services to enter into agreements under ICWAconcerning the “jurisdiction of Native child custody proceedings.” 63 Collaboration andcooperation in other aspects of child protection should also be accomplished to improvethe overall quality of services available to those families in need.The Commission recommends development of a state-tribal ICWA agreement forconsideration by the State and Alaska’s tribes. 64 With the assistance of work groupmembers, the Commission devoted considerable time to development of a modelagreement of this kind. The willingness of all of the stakeholders to work toward anacceptable agreement left a great impression on the Commission. Unfortunately, the taskof developing a proposed agreement could not be finished in the available time.There is also substantial need for tribal-state partnerships on juvenile justicematters. Some tribal courts and councils work very effectively with juveniles and theirparents to respond to a juvenile’s delinquent or troublesome behavior, and there is noneed for state participation in the matter. Where the tribal government is able toeffectively address the needs of the juvenile and the community, it may prefer not toencourage state involvement, so that the offending minor does not acquire a state juvenilerecord.Other village justice systems, however, would prefer to coordinate more closelywith the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and might, with DJJ’s consent, wish to refer ajuvenile to the Division. The Commission therefore urges DJJ to discuss with interestedtribal courts whether such a referral mechanism might be achieved and then makeagreements with tribes and tribal courts to coordinate the disposition of juvenile offensesas currently permitted under state law. 656162636465John v. Baker I, 982 P. 2d 738 (1999) (recognizing inherent tribal jurisdiction in a custody disputeinvolving tribal children).In the Matter of C.R.H., 29 P.3d 849 (Alaska 2001) (upholding transfer jurisdiction under ICWA).AS 47.14.100(g).Recommendation 4. Specific to this recommendation, “such an agreement would take into account thechanges in the law that have taken place since 1990 and reduce the number of issues over which theState and tribes are currently litigating. It would also provide a template for cooperation between theState and tribes that could provide a model for other topics.”Recommendation 5.Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission - Page 43