Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Assembly Member Ramos is here, ready to present his bill. We only have one bill. So I want to note that for this bill and for all other bills in the future, we'll allow two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will have two minutes to speak.

After the primary support, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. Name, affiliation, and position. I'll do the same for the opposition. After we hear from support and opposition, we'll turn to the comments from Committee Members.

If you wish to further expand upon your position, you can submit a letter to the Committee using one of the methods described in the Judiciary Committee's website. We have one bill on today's agenda, AB 81. We're going to proceed as a subcommittee. Yes, Senator Wilk has...

I want to note, because this is the first time all year where the Democrats have actually turned out early in...

Thank you very much, Senator Wilk. Senator Wilk has noted that this is the first time in my four years... How many years? Four or five years of being Chair of this Committee, that the Democrats actually showed up in greater proportion than Republicans early on. So thank you, Senator Wilk, for pointing that out.

I'm fair.

All right. You are fair. All right, so we have AB 81 by Assembly Member Ramos, which we are hearing pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10, Sub B. All right, Assembly Member Ramos, we're going to proceed as a subcommittee here. So the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Today, dealing with an issue called ICWA deals with a rare reverse assimilation policy that deals with making sure that Indian children go with Indian families to...

Assembly Member Ramos, before you get too far into this thing, I apologize, but I'd like to establish a quorum because we have two other committees going on in the Senate right now. So if you don't mind, if we'll just establish a quorum, you can present to the full, to the full Committee. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] You have a quorum.

We have quorum. Thank you, Assembly Member Ramos. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Indian Child Welfare Act is a rare reverse assimilation policy that looks to put Indian children back with their cultural families to continue to keep the culture alive, something that was stripped throughout history. ICWA continues to move forward as a beacon of hope for Indian communities throughout the United States.

And in so, the Supreme Court, US Supreme Court upheld the rights of Indian people with through ICWA. Today I am presenting AB 81, a bill that deals with this policy. I want to first thank the Governor's Administration for working on this bill over this session.

And I am happy to be in front of you today presenting this bill. ICWA was established in 1978 and is a federal law that establishes minimum federal standards for state court child welfare proceedings and any child custody proceedings involving Indian children. AB 81 would codify sections of the federal ICWA law into California's ICWA law, strengthening protections for California Indian children.

Last year, the United States Supreme Court voted seven to two to reject the challenge of ICWA. There was a challenge that took on called Haaland and Brackeen, and the US Supreme Court sided with Indian children. This is a major victory for tribal nations in California and the future of tribal cultures. The decision affirms what tribal nations have long known, ICWA is the best practice in child welfare and deserves to be upheld in the United States and in the State of California.

While the Supreme Court rejected all claims against ICWA, there are spaces that California can address and update to shield California tribes against future challenges. This bill would strengthen the laws surrounding Indian child custody and proceedings protecting California's first people. With me to testify in support is Sherry Treppa, Chairwoman of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, and board member of the California Tribal Families Coalition, a sponsor. Also, is Scott Govenar, representing the Morongo Tribal Government. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ramos. All right, first witness, please approach microphone. Yes, right there is fine.

Great. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Sherry Treppa. I spent the last 20 years as the Executive Councilperson for Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, in the last 16 years as the Chairwoman. Today I represent my tribe as the Tribal Ambassador working on government relations, and I'm president of our enterprise, Habemco.

I am here to express my tribe and my personal support for AB 81 and hope that you all will support the bill too. Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake has long been a member of the California Tribal Families Coalition, the organization co-sponsoring the bill along with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

California was one of the first states in the nation to enact state ICWA legislation over 15 years ago. While I am proud of the leadership of our state has had in the area, we cannot rest on these past achievements. To make sure that we have the best laws and policies to place to protect tribes and their citizens caught in child welfare systems, we must constantly move forward. AB 81 makes such needed updates to California laws related to ICWA protections.

The bill will strengthen the role of tribal sovereignty in cases related to Indian children and families and to prevent against future attacks on the federal ICWA. It will also reaffirm ICWA protections applied to all Indian children, regardless of how they come into contact with the child welfare system.

It will also ensure the placements are found within the kin first model of ICWA placement preferences so that kids stay as close to home and to their community as possible without the burden shifting to tribes in state court cases. And finally, it authorizes tribes to assess and approve emergency foster homes for Indian children.

As you likely know, the Supreme Court upheld the federal ICWA with monumental win for tribes in the Haaland v. Brackeen case last June. Because of this, AB 81 does not have to be a heavy lift with big changes to the California statutory structure. Instead, we need language that is bipartisan and intended to clarify and strengthen our current statutory protection.

Thank you. If you'd wrap it up, please. Thank you.

Well, I ask that you support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, next witness.

Mr. Chair and Members, Scott Govenar on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, a co-sponsor. I'll try not to be redundant here. This is really a cleanup bill. ICWA was referenced through over 30 code sections, differently throughout. The intent of this bill is to ensure uniformity. So should another legal challenge arise, California would be well positioned to protect tribal children and keep the law intact. That's the goal of the measure, and we ask for your support. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you, Mr. Govenar. All right, all those who wish to testify in support, please give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Paula Treat on behalf of Pechanga, Tejon,and the Calusa Tribes. Support.

Thank you.

Shine Nieto, Tule River in support.

Thank you.

Chairman, Members, Frank Molina on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians in support. Thank you,

Alrighty, thank you.

David Quintana on behalf of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Indians, and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Tiffany Phan on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or Cal CASA, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrew Govenar on behalf of CNIGA, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights in support.

Thank you.

Pam Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe in support.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to testify in support? Seeing no one approaching, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 81, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to Committee Members. Senator Ashby, and then Senator Laird.

Thank you.

And then Senator Niello.

In my time prior to being a Legislator, I had the opportunity to work on ICWA quite a bit in the Indian Child Welfare Act with my dad, who was the head of foster care for the State of California. I think this is a critically important area of the law, one that often gets overlooked.

In fact, a lot of people, well meaning, do work in the foster care adoptions area and overlook the implications of ICWA. And you see a lot of cleanup legislation here actually going back and just fixing the ICWA piece that was inadvertently missed sometimes by legislators.

There was a moment, probably about eight months ago, where this bill would have been critically important just to protect ICWA in California had the federal government gone a different way. And you were willing to carry it even then, and to stand up for this really important package. And I was prepared even then to have your back.

Now, it is a much lighter lift, as some folks have indicated here. But I would argue equally important. We don't want to rely on federal decisions. We want California to protect the kids and the tribes, and the Indian Child Welfare Act does that. And it's really important.

I wanted to talk about it today because, for all the legislators who are here, when you're voting on these bills, ever in the future, anything having to do with child welfare, just look really quick to see if the bill addresses the ICWA component, because there is an ICWA component whenever you touch child welfare law. So with that, I'm happy to move this bill for the good Assembly Member and just thank him for his constant great work in this space and all the advocates. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. Senator Laird, then Senator Niello.

No, I was just going to move the bill.

Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Laird. Senator Ashby's beating you to it. All right, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I fully understand the reason for this legislation originally at the federal level and am totally sympathetic to it. But there's one concern that I have, through side discussions that I've had, that maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but foster care judicial system is founded on the premise that the number one concern is the interest of the child. And my concern about this particular law is that that specific interest is, and appears to me, subjugated to the priority of the tribe interests. How do you answer that?

It's directly to the interests of the child. And that was part of the argument with Haaland v. Brackeen, where the US Supreme Court sided with Indian children because of the assimilation policies that the United States used during colonization, trying to strip culture, language, that ICWA was created to then put the tribal kids back with tribal families and tribal culture to retain that culture moving forward.

So the argument that you're bringing up was what was debated at the US Supreme Court that ended up on a seven to two ruling, siding with Indian children to be able to be placed with culture and traditions back with the families. So it is the interest of the child to be back to learn the culture of what's been running through their ancestral lines.

My understanding of that case is that that adoption was what was preferred by the parents who had the link to Native American culture, and that the child was with the adopted family for several years and then taken out of the adopted family. I understand the reason, but I just question whether that might have been, while there's a disagreement with the placement, though it's somewhat, I guess, sticky, since the parents preferred that adoption.

But nonetheless, to have the child with that adopted family for several years and then take them out of that. What appeared by all cases to be a happy environment. Might have overridden the interest of the child. And the other question I have is, what happens when one parent is of Native American descent and one parent is not, and it ends up with a foster child? What happens? And so there's two issues there.

Yeah, I'm not sure if those want to address that component of it, but it goes back to the tribe that the individual is from, to be able to go back and to be placed to learn that culture, to keep that culture moving forward. The Brackeen case, Haaland versus Brackeen, brought up those points, and that was debated at the US Supreme Court, where the US Supreme Court sided with the interests of the child to be able to retain the culture that was stripped during assimilation policies. ICWA is a rare instance of reverse assimilation.

Reverse assimilation, bringing back the culture that was stripped from the child from the beginning. So that goes back into those areas. As far as when you have a parent that's of Native American and another one that's not, that would be up to the courts to interpret. That's what ICWA is about.

Alrighty. Senator Wahab? Are you finished, Senator Niello? Okay. Senator Wahab.

There may be a response to one... There may be a response to one question that I have.

I'm sorry. I just wanted to mention that ICWA does not supplant the best interest of the child standard in the foster care system. ICWA ensures that culture and community becomes a component and is considered in the best interest of the child. Tribe's history...

If you have to think about what occurred. There were children forcibly removed from their families to break the culture, to disassemble tribes, and the continuity of our culture. And this was the fix to it. So you can't not consider that. But again, it doesn't replace or remove the best interest of the child standard considerations that are already in the system, the foster care system.

All righty. Thank you very much. Okay. Senator Niello, does that answer your question? All right, thank you. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Assembly Member, thank you for bringing this up. I'm glad that you represent your community very well. Primarily, you have brought up a number of bills regarding the Native American community. I just want to highlight this because I think it's important. I, myself, am a former foster youth. Right.

So I fully understand exactly the system and the failures. I think it was also stated, we hear in the history books and we read it, that people, let's say, during even slavery time, they would break up the nucleus family, specifically to remove culture, remove language, remove religion, remove any identity.

And that was done also more recently to Native Americans and other cultures as well, in weird legal ways. Right. So I really respect what you're doing here. And I want to highlight people, you know, conflate kind of what's going on in the justice system and specifically in any situation that's set up for children.

The priority is the child, first and foremost. I will say that, to me, it does not necessarily matter what ethnic background, per se. I just want a happy, healthy, safe home for the child. That's first and foremost. And I think any judge, any social worker, any person that is working on a child's case, prioritizes, first and foremost.

The second piece is culturally appropriate. Right? Making sure that, hey, can we ensure that, whether it's language, religion, culture, food, all of those things are respected. And we have to go further, when we're talking about more diverse and minority amongst minority communities. That was a requirement and a request that I've seen historically being done in other communities.

So I'm hoping that we have the same for Native Americans as well. And at the same time, when we see this, I do want to highlight why this bill is so important. Also very interesting. There was an individual that I engaged with that was adopted, and a lot of people did not view them as their equal, because this person was adopted by two white parents and identified as white but ethnically and biologically was Mexican.

And we know that the foster youth system is largely people of color, with less and less people being able to adopt them that are people of color. Right. And so there are some deviations there. And, you know, there was a hard understanding from the rest of their community members as to why does this person identify as white when visibly they are not white. Right. And so there are some cultural conflicts there. But also, you know, it takes a lot of therapy.

You know, just being in the foster care system, people don't understand this. This is more than just, you know, like some news situation or, you know, social media posts. It's people's lives, people's identities, especially if they grew up in that. So being able to protect the Native American culture and the identity of that individual is incredibly important. My question is, if there's not enough homes. Right. Placement to other loving families would be an option. Correct?

Family Coalition?

Yes. Right?

Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay. I think Assembly Member Ramos answered yes. Right? Did you want your witness to respond?

I wanted to see if they want to address... Is there lines on...

Yes.

Okay. And I just want to, with Chair's permission, just ask a couple more questions. So you guys would prioritize, with this bill in place, one, the child's health and wellbeing, first and foremost. Correct?

There are placement preferences and a priority to try to keep the culture connected. But the benefit, again, it is not replacing the best interest of the child.

100%. Right. So number one is the best interest of the child. Health, well being, you know, everything like that. Safety and security. Correct?

There... Yes. There are also preferences to connect the culture, keep the culture connected.

Okay. And if that's not available...

Yeah. Everybody, I think in the foster care system, it'd be ideal to have a family that's part of that child's...

Okay. And is there any data points that this is being tracked and the success and the well being of that child long term?

Yes, there's actually... There is a growing body of data being collected, and I don't have it on me, but can certainly supply it to the Committee following this hearing.

Okay. And this is also... I understand that this is for federally recognized tribes, and I just want to make sure...

Federally, and then California components is what we're adopting into it to ensure that moving forward.

Okay. I know you and I have had conversations about the smaller tribes.

Federal law, Mr. Chair. just...

Sure, go ahead.

The PL 280 bill was also federal law. PL 280. So this deals with Indian Child Welfare Act of federal law that now we're bringing to California, actually strengthening it up. But to answer your question, if a child is in foster care and moving forward, the first preference is to put them back with the tribal communities. If that's not there, then the individual does not stay in foster care if there's opportunity to move forward.

Okay. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Senator Wahab. Not seeing any other questions or comments. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Would you like to close, Assembly Member Ramos?

Just want to thank Senators for their conversations. Definitely deeply appreciate it. This is an important bill. And again, this starts to reverse assimilation policies against Native American people, not only here in the State of California, but across the United States. And I would encourage an aye vote on this bill.

All right, thank you very much. All right, it's been moved by Senator Ashby. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number one, AB 81. The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate Floor for consideration. [Roll Call] You have eight to zero with Members missing.

All right. There are two Members that aren't present, and so that has enough votes to get out of Committee and advance to the floor. But we're going to keep the roll open here just for a little while to allow the other two Members who wish to vote an opportunity to vote. So, all righty, thank you.

All right, Madam Secretary, if you would open the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right, that concludes -

Nine to zero.

Nine to zero. The bill is out. That concludes the hearing. We are adjourned. Thank you.