Latest news with #Plumer
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
ICWA is before the Minnesota Supreme Court again. Here's why
Allison HerreraMPR News Two Martin County foster parents are getting another audience in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court Tuesday, after arguing last fall that a nearly 50-year-old law that prevented them from adopting two Native children is unconstitutional. If the couple succeeds in their challenge, it could drastically alter the constitutionality of the law, which is meant to preserve tribal sovereignty and address decades of Native children being severed from their cultures. The twins at the center of this case were initially placed with foster parents until a lower court ruled they should be placed with a relative. The white foster couple, Kellie and Nathan Reyelts of Fairmont, wanted to adopt the children and claim they've been prevented from doing so because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, and a state companion law known as the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act, or MIFPA. They say the law is unfair. The couple says the placement preferences required under the two laws — that the children be placed with an immediate family member or a foster home approved by the tribe — violate their 5th and 14th Amendment rights. The twins were removed from the Reyelts' home after the Red Lake Nation, the tribal nation their mother is from and which they are eligible to become citizens of, said they should be placed with an aunt. The twins are now living with their grandmother and have been since September of 2023. An older sibling also resides with them. Two lower courts already ruled against the Reyelts' claims that the two laws discriminate against them in the adoption process because of their race. Last fall, they took their case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Before the court ruled, they asked for a second hearing — Tuesday's — to make the same constitutional claims and add two more issues: Did the district court err in denying their motion for permissive intervention, and did the district court err in dismissing their third party custody petition? The constitutional issue being considered again: Are the placement preferences of ICWA and MIFPA unconstitutional? The placement preference is with an immediate family member or a placement preference chosen by the Red Lake Nation. Joseph Plumer, the attorney for the Red Lake Nation, said the reason the plaintiff's attorneys are bringing this case is simple — they want to bring this case before the United States Supreme Court. During last fall's oral arguments, Associate Justice Anne McKeig, herself a descendant of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, directly asked Plumer if he thought it was their intention. 'Counsel, can I ask you a question that's probably going to be controversial, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Does there seem to be some — gamesmanship may not be the right word — but do you see this court as an avenue to try to get the issue of constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act before the United States Supreme Court?' McKeig asked. 'Yes,' Plumer responded. 'That's exactly what the appellants are trying to do in this case.' Shannon Smith, the executive director of the ICWA Law Center, which provides legal services and advocacy to Native families impacted by the child protection system, agrees. 'They are looking, I think, for something that somehow can be distinguishable from the decision in Haaland v. Brackeen,' Smith said. She is referring to the case involving a white Texas couple who had successfully adopted a Navajo child. Their attorneys, including Mark Fiddler, a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Ojibwe and the attorney representing the Reyelts, argued the laws were race-based and unconstitutional. Even though they lost the case, the court found that the petitioners' claims of equal protection lacked standing, which is why the Reyelts can challenge the placement and claim discrimination. Fiddler declined to comment to MPR News. Smith says foster parents are an important part of the system of keeping children safe and providing stability. But, their role is temporary. 'You're temporarily stepping in to care for a child where the intent is for the child to be reunified with a parent or place the relative,' she said.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Woman with ALS explains decision to die with medical assistance
When CBS News visited Barbara Goodfriend's home in New Jersey, it was crowded with family and friends — a place that seemed full of life. So it was hard to process that it was also a place where she was determined to die just 24 hours later. "It's been a week of family, friends. We've done a lot of crying, all of us, but we've laughed. We've enjoyed being together," Goodfriend said. Last April, Goodfriend was diagnosed with ALS, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a disease that attacks the nervous system and robs people of their muscle control. The 83-year-old widow spent decades working in fashion while raising her only daughter. After a doctor told her she might not live through the fall, she deteriorated quickly and suffered falls that caused bruises on her face. Rather than suffer, Goodfriend has chosen what's known as "Medical Aid in Dying," or MAID. A doctor prescribes a mixture of lethal medication. The patient must have six months or less to live, be of sound mind and must administer it themselves. The procedure is different than euthanasia — when a doctor gives a patient a lethal injection — which is illegal in the U.S. Goodfriend says she doesn't want to die, but she also doesn't want to continue living with a terminal disease. "What am I going to give this up for? To be in a wheelchair? To have a feeding tube? I wish I had more time to live, but I don't want more time as a patient," Goodfriend said. "I hope that something will get done, something will be accomplished, so that others can have the privilege that I'm having." Dying with medical assistance is currently legal in 10 states and Washington, D.C., but eight other states are considering similar laws this year, according to the nonprofit Death with Dignity. Dr. Robin Plumer has attended nearly 200 deaths in New Jersey, where MAID was made legal in 2019. The law doesn't require Goodfriend to have a doctor at her bedside on her final day, but she wanted Plumer there. "You're going to drink this medicine and drift off into sleep and you're going to just feel all the love and support," Plumer said. Goodfriend says no one tried to talk her out of it. Her daughter, Carol, helped her through the process. "I think the hardest part in all of this, for me as her only child, is to support something so difficult and so contrary to what you want to do. The ultimate love that you can give somebody is to respect their wish, to live the way they wanna live, and to die the way they want to die," Carol said. Goodfriend's last day of life was spent with her loved ones in a room full of unmistakable emotion. But the calmest one there was the woman in bed who'd made the choice to die. "I'm not afraid of dying...I was afraid of living," Goodfriend said. Trump's statement on New Jersey drones issued at White House press briefing AI stocks plunge as China's DeepSeek sends shock wave through Wall Street U.S. troops head to southern border as deportations continue
CBS News
29-01-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Woman with ALS explains "Medical Aid in Dying" decision: "I don't want more time as a patient"
When CBS News visited Barbara Goodfriend's home in New Jersey, it was crowded with family and friends — a place that seemed full of life. So it was hard to process that it was also a place where she was determined to die just 24 hours later. "It's been a week of family, friends. We've done a lot of crying, all of us, but we've laughed. We've enjoyed being together," Goodfriend said. Last April, Goodfriend was diagnosed with ALS, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a disease that attacks the nervous system and robs people of their muscle control. The 83-year-old widow spent decades working in fashion while raising her only daughter. After a doctor told her she might not live through the fall, she deteriorated quickly and suffered falls that caused bruises on her face. Rather than suffer, Goodfriend has chosen what's known as "Medical Aid in Dying," or MAID. A doctor prescribes a mixture of lethal medication. The patient must have six months or less to live, be of sound mind and must administer it themselves. The procedure is different than euthanasia — when a doctor gives a patient a lethal injection — which is illegal in the U.S. Goodfriend says she doesn't want to die, but she also doesn't want to continue living with a terminal disease. "What am I going to give this up for? To be in a wheelchair? To have a feeding tube? I wish I had more time to live, but I don't want more time as a patient," Goodfriend said. "I hope that something will get done, something will be accomplished, so that others can have the privilege that I'm having." Dying with medical assistance is currently legal in 10 states and Washington, D.C., but eight other states are considering similar laws this year, according to the nonprofit Death with Dignity. Dr. Robin Plumer has attended nearly 200 deaths in New Jersey, where MAID was made legal in 2019. The law doesn't require Goodfriend to have a doctor at her bedside on her final day, but she wanted Plumer there. "You're going to drink this medicine and drift off into sleep and you're going to just feel all the love and support," Plumer said. Goodfriend says no one tried to talk her out of it. Her daughter, Carol, helped her through the process. "I think the hardest part in all of this, for me as her only child, is to support something so difficult and so contrary to what you want to do. The ultimate love that you can give somebody is to respect their wish, to live the way they wanna live, and to die the way they want to die," Carol said. Goodfriend's last day of life was spent with her loved ones in a room full of unmistakable emotion. But the calmest one there was the woman in bed who'd made the choice to die. "I'm not afraid of dying...I was afraid of living," Goodfriend said.
