1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 11 P.3d
  5. 11 P.3d 701 (2000)
 

STATE EX REL. SOSCF v. KLAMATH TRIBE

(9700470JV, 9700534JV; CA A104784 (Control), A104785)

11 P.3d 701 (2000)

170 Or. App. 106

In the Matter of Brittany Kirk, Daniel Kirk, Pazia Kirk, Kendra Kirk, and Tony Ray Kirk-Smith, Minor Children. STATE ex rel. STATE OFFICE FOR SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. KLAMATH TRIBE, Respondent-Appellant, and Sonia Kirk, Brittany Kirk, Daniel Kirk, Pazia Kirk, Kendra Kirk and Tony Kirk-Smith, Respondents. In the Matter of Shaya Say, Tanaya Say and Tearra Say, Minor Children. State ex rel. State Office for Services to Children and Families, Appellant, v. Klamath Tribe, Appellant, and Darrel Say, Jennifer Say, Shaya Say, Tanaya Say and Tearra Say, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided September 27, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stephanie L. Striffler, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant State Office for Services to Children and Families. With her on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Craig J. Dorsay, Portland, argued the cause for respondent—appellant Klamath Tribe. With him on the appellant's brief was Jennifer K. De Wald.

Lynn M. Travis, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Brittany Kirk, Daniel Kirk, Pazia Kirk, Kendra Kirk, Tony Kirk-Smith, Shaya Say, Tanaya Say, and Tearra Say. With him on the brief was Karen S. Torry and Juvenile Rights Project, Inc.

No appearance by respondent Sonia Kirk.

No appearance by respondent Darrel Say.

No appearance by respondent Jennifer Say.

Before LINDER, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Judge, and CENICEROS, Senior Judge.

BREWER, J.

This is a consolidated proceeding involving eight children who are within the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. ORS 419B.100. The State Office for Services to Children and Families (SCF) and the Klamath Tribe (the Tribe) appeal from the trial court's declaratory judgment that none of the children was an "Indian child" and, thus, could not be subject to an "Indian Child Welfare Act Agreement" (the agreement) executed in 1989 between the Tribe...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases