Minn. Juve. Prot. P. 2.01
The terms used in these rules shall have the following meanings:
Minn. Juve. Prot. P. 2.01
2019 Advisory Committee Comment
Rule 2 is amended in 2019 as part of a revision of the Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure.
Rule 2.01(7) cites the definitions of "child custody proceeding" under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1), "child-custody proceeding" under the ICWA regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.2, and "child placement proceeding" under the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 3. There are some differences between each of the definitions. The ICWA definition exempts "placement[s] based upon an act which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed a crime." In contrast, the ICWA regulation definition expressly includes "status offenses" within the definition of "child-custody proceeding," but unlike ICWA exempts "emergency proceeding[s]" from the definition. The ICWA regulation definition also specifies that for its purposes, "an action that may culminate in one of these four outcomes [foster-care placement, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement] is considered a separate child-custody proceeding from an action that may culminate in a different one of these four outcomes." Meanwhile, the MIFPA definition includes "placements based upon juvenile status offenses, but do[es] not include a placement based upon an act which if committed by an adult would be deemed a crime." The applicability and interplay of these three definitions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Rule 2.01(14) cites the definition of "Indian child" under MIFPA, Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 8. Unlike the definition of Indian child under ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4), MIFPA does not require a child who is eligible for tribal membership to be the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. The Committee notes that the MIFPA definition provides a "higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian" as contemplated by ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1921. See In re the Adoption of M.T.S., 489 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
Rule 2.01(15) cites the definitions of "Indian child's tribe" under ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1903(5), the ICWA regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 and 23.109, and MIFPA, Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 9. In situations where a child is a member or eligible for membership in more than one tribe, the ICWA definition states that the "Indian child's tribe is the tribe with which the Indian child has the most significant contacts." The MIFPA definition restates the ICWA definition, and then provides that if the tribe with which the child has the most significant contacts does not become involved with the outcome of the court actions, "any other tribe in which the child is eligible for membership that expresses an interest in the outcome may act as the Indian child's tribe." In contrast, 25 C.F.R. § 23.109, "How should a State court determine an Indian child's Tribe when the child may be a member or eligible for membership in more than one Tribe?", sets out a different procedure. The applicability and interplay of these three definitions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Rule 2.01(16) cites the definitions of "Indian custodian" under ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1903(6), the ICWA regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.2, and MIFPA, Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 10. The ICWA regulation definition additionally provides that "[a]n Indian may demonstrate that he or she is an Indian custodian by looking to Tribal law or Tribal custom or State law."
Rule 2.01(32) cites the statute defining who is a "relative" for purposes of juvenile protection matters. The rule cites the additional state statutes that govern who is a "relative" for an Indian child for purposes of juvenile protection matters. The state statute provides that a "relative" of an Indian child includes anyone who is an "extended family member," an "Indian custodian," or a "parent" of the child as defined in ICWA.