In the Welfare of Four Indian Minors
Puyallup Tribal Children’s Court of Appeals
9 NICS App. 105 (2010)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
The Puyallup tribe (plaintiff) filed dependency matters concerning L.S. and her four siblings (the children). The Puyallup Tribal Children’s Court held a dispositional hearing and found probable cause to believe that the children’s mother (defendant) was neglecting them and that they had been abused or were at risk of being abused. The court removed the children from their home and entered a dispositional order setting forth the benchmarks that the mother was required to meet for the court to close the matters, including the requirement to remain clean and sober at all times. As the months passed, the mother missed three appointments for urine analysis to detect whether she had used drugs or alcohol. The court allowed the children to return home while keeping them under the court’s supervision. The court held a fourth review hearing and entered its findings and orders, including that the mother was in compliance with the dispositional order because, among other things, she did not have a positive urine analysis. The court dismissed the dependency matters. The tribe appealed, arguing, among other things, that the court’s finding that the mother was in compliance with the dispositional order because she did not have a positive urine analysis was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Doucet, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.