Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act MCL 712B Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act MCL 712B.1-41 June 19, 2013 Midwest Child Welfare Implementation Center Conference Faded picture background with full-color overlay (Intermediate)

History CIP created a Tribal Court Relations Committee in 2008. TCR and special workgroup members created an ICWA Court Resource Guide. The workgroup consisted of members representing: Tribal & state court judges and staff, Michigan Indian Legal Services, tribal & state agency workers Law enforcement Attorney General’s office Department of Community Health SCAO – Child Welfare Services staff

History After completion of the ICWA Court Resource Guide, the Tribal Court Relations Committee identified the need for the Michigan Court Rules to incorporate provisions of ICWA into specific provisions within various rules relating to child protective and juvenile status offenses. A special committee of TCR and Resource Guide members accomplished this. Prior to the 2010 rule amendments Michigan only had one court rule addressing ICWA MCR 3.980; the new language was designed so the rules reflected a more integrated approach to addressing issues specific to Indian children.

History – Need for State ICWA Legislation Michigan Court Improvement Program initially brought people together in 2010 to work on MIFPA Identified need for improved compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) from: appellate decisions, Tribal and state agency feedback at Tribal State Partnership Meetings, CIP member feedback, and ICWA Guide and Court Rules special committee member feedback. Michigan learned a lot from our sister state of Wisconsin prior to beginning work and since MIFPA’s passage. They shared tips for bringing people together, for getting legislation introduced and training!

Goals Increased ICWA compliance Decreased confusion about requirements by DHS and Courts (user friendly) Obtain input from multiple viewpoints/stakeholders on proposed draft legislation CIP Tribal Court Relations Committee worked to identify stakeholders and as people were identified, these people were asked who else should be at the table….

Engaging Stakeholders – Court Improvement Program as Facilitator Invited Michigan’s 12 Tribal Chairs , Tribal Social Services directors, tribal attorneys Included Department of Human Services, Department of Community Health, Attorney General, Michigan State Police, Michigan Judicial Institute, SCAO, Foster Care Review Board, Prosecutors Engaged courts including judges, referees, probate registers and court administrators Invited State Bar of Michigan, Michigan Indian Legal Services, American Indian Health and Family Services of Southeast Michigan, Michigan State University – Indigenous Law Program, North American Indian Association of Detroit, Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council, Referees Association of Michigan, University of Michigan Law School Approximately 85 people provided input Tribal Chairs could designate representatives to attend MILS represented the parent perspective at the table.

Engaging Stakeholders SCAO offered to reimburse rooms, mileage and meals for participants to ease budget concerns (IOLTA funds administered through Michigan Supreme Court) Actively sought input through electronic communications on various drafts from those who could not attend in person If you are thinking about doing something similar in your state, you can be creative with your funding proposals. IOLTA is the Interest on Lawyers Trust Account created in Michigan for access to justice/racial-ethnic and gender equality in the justice system type projects. Also, if you are not already connected with your state’s Court Improvement Program, reach out to them if you are interested in this or if there are systemic ICWA concerns in your state. Every state has a CIP program and you can find information about it on your state’s Supreme Court website.

Process Began with initial draft Kept meetings to a minimum (4x over the course of a year) Comprehensive discussion using consensus process resulted in a proposal the majority agreed upon Initial draft was created from a 1992 MIFPA version that was recommended by a tribal-state court judges forum. A smaller workgroup reworked this older draft as a place for the conversations to start. The final product was very different but having a document to start with was helpful.

Process After final meeting, all agreed upon changes were disseminated for final comment SCAO sent final version to the workgroup members Workgroup members (tribes and DHS) made some additional revisions and took the proposal to the Legislature

Challenges Along the Way Coordinating the volume of information/input received: we used a projection screen and inserted proposed language during the meetings. Distributed chart with comments received between meetings to all workgroup members for discussion at the next meeting. Limited number of meetings due to funding: there could easily have been two more meetings to allow more discussion. Balancing the need to discuss with the need to move through the information created tensions at times!

Challenges Along the Way, cont’d. Logistics with: Processing invoices Organizing meeting space Coordinating AV Setting up hotel room blocks and accommodations Ordering meals Distributing meeting information and notifications We are thankful for a wonderful support staff who handled these details that would overwhelm most of us!

Challenges Along the Way, cont’d. Turning over the process to other stakeholders to move the proposal to the Legislature. (ensuring detailed documentation of the invitees, actual participants, their comments and the logic behind the various provisions was shared) Stacey and Jim talk about collaborative process that continued: The draft underwent further changes at the Legislature and the continued involvement of the tribes and other stakeholders was essential. At one point, the changes were so extensive and took the document so far away from its original intent, tribal support was lost. One of Michigan’s tribal chairs remained very involved, voiced concerns, held meetings with the sponsoring Senator and the draft was mostly restored to an earlier version!

Training After MIFPA Passage SCAO’s CIP Tribal Court Relations Committee conducted various activities to train child welfare professionals on the new MIFPA. created a MIFPA/ICWA comparison chart modeled after a Wisconsin version. Distributed chart to courts, DHS and tribes. Posted the chart online on the SCAO-CWS website Developed, conducted and filmed live interdisciplinary training in March 2013. Archived online at SCAO-CWS site.

Training Plan for SCAO-CWS to do MIFPA topic “web-cast” shorts (approximately 15-25 minutes) with CIP training funds and post online. Plan for “one year” implementation follow-up training based on feedback from tribal and state partners Feedback will be used to determine weak areas that need focus.

Questions/Contact Information Maribeth Preston, JD, LMSW Management Analyst Child Welfare Services Michigan State Court Administrative Office Direct Phone: 517-373-8995 prestonm@courts.mi.gov