Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families

 Comments Off on Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families
Oct 172021
 

October 11, 2021

Washington, DC – Wiley, a preeminent DC law firm, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Brackeen v. Haaland. The brief was filed in support of adoptive families and states in this high-profile case, which urges the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision involving the rights of Native American children and their families under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). The brief was joined by seven individual signatories who are former ICWA children or are parents to ICWA children, all of whom have been harmed by ICWA.

Wiley partner Stephen J. Obermeier and associate Krystal B. Swendsboe, who authored the amicus brief, are members of the firm’s Issues and Appeals Practice and are representing the nonprofit Alliance on a pro bono basis.

The case, which stems from a child-custody dispute, addresses the harm suffered by Indian children and their families as a result of ICWA – such as the denial of the full range of rights and protections of the federal and state constitutions to the petitioners when subjected to tribal jurisdiction under the ICWA.

“For nearly fifty years, ICWA has imposed race-based classifications on Indian children and their families – a clear violation of Equal Protection – and has caused horrendous individual suffering as a result,” Obermeier and Swendsboe explained in the Alliance’s brief.

As noted in the brief, this case raises particularly significant issues for Alliance because its members are birth parents, birth relatives, foster parents, and adoptive parents of children with varying amounts of Indian ancestry, as well as tribal members, individuals with tribal heritage, or former ICWA children – all of whom have seen or experienced the tragic consequences of applying ICWA’s race-based distinctions. The brief includes, as examples, stories from the individual amicus signatories who have been harmed by ICWA’s race-based distinctions and discriminatory placement preferences.

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the ICWA exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, according to the amicus brief.

Congress “may not exercise power over family and custody matters under the guise of regulating commerce with Indian Tribes,” the brief argued. “ICWA, therefore, exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce, as it is entirely unrelated to commerce and intrudes on noncommercial subjects belonging entirely to the states.”

https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Wiley-Files-Amicus-Brief-in-High-Profile-Supreme-Court-Case-on-Behalf-of-Christian-Alliance-for-Indian-Child-Welfare-and-Former-ICWA-Children-and-Families

UPDATE: Brackeen Partial Victory for Kids, Despite Tribal Leaders Continuing Demand that Congress Retain Plenary Control OVER EVERYONE

 Comments Off on UPDATE: Brackeen Partial Victory for Kids, Despite Tribal Leaders Continuing Demand that Congress Retain Plenary Control OVER EVERYONE
Apr 152021
 

Why do tribal leaders WANT Congress to have “plenary and exclusive” power over ALL tribal members? In a land where life, liberty are supposed to be guaranteed, it is so backward and insane to want “Father government” to retain complete control over your membership.

From our attorney:

The 5th Circuit’s En Banc opinion in the Brackeen case is a lengthy opinion that, in part, affirms the District Court’s ruling that portions of ICWA are unconstitutional. This is good news, but, because the En Banc Court was not able to reach a majority in their reasoning, certain swaths of the decision are not precedential. This means that the opinion, although generally positive for plaintiffs, will have limited applicability in later cases. And it may mean that a Supreme Court appeal is less likely, although it is still possible.

CAICW’s amicus argument is referenced briefly in Judge Duncan’s opinion (around page 182-183). This is typical for amicus briefs, particularly ones like CAICW’s which was highlighting a separate and tangential point for any potential Supreme Court review.

Although the opinion is complicated, it can be summarized as follows: (1) the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (2) Congress had authority to enact ICWA and the “Indian Child” classification does not violate Equal Protection, but the Court could not agree as to whether ICWA’s placement preferences constituted a violation, thus the District Court’s ruling on that point is affirmed without precedential opinion; (3) portions of ICWA unconstitutionally commandeer state actors, but the Court is divided on whether other portions constitute unconstitutional commandeering, so the District Court’s ruling on those latter points is affirmed without precedential opinion; (4) ICWA’s allowing Indian tribes to establish different adoptive and foster preferences does not violate the non-delegation doctrine; and (5) although the BIA did not violated the APA, the portion of the Final Rule interpreting “good cause” violated the APA.

As for next steps, the parties have until June to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. If they choose not to do so, the case will be returned to the District Court for further proceedings to determine the harm suffered by plaintiffs.

Letter to Federal Agency re: Missing and Murdered Native Americans

 Comments Off on Letter to Federal Agency re: Missing and Murdered Native Americans
Oct 092020
 
dyinginindiancountry.com/

Re: Administration for Children and Families Missing and Murdered Native
Americans Framework

Dear Assistant Secretary Johnson:

We are writing in response to your request for comments on the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Missing and Murdered Native Americans (MMNA) Framework.

The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare is a Christian ministry and family advocacy dedicated to the safety and welfare of children and families affected by federal Indian policy.

Your framework states that the crisis is a result of the insufficiency of programs meant to target the housing, lack of employment, mental and physical health care, nutrition, and education of tribal members. We believe the problem does not lie in the insufficiency of government programs or funding. There is already too much of both. We believe the problem lies in not recognizing and addressing the root of the crisis. In fact, this crisis might not benefit from intervention by the ACF, a social service agency, at all.

CAICW holds that all United States citizens are individually guaranteed a personal and distinct right to life, liberty, and property, and that no government on earth can remove those rights. We welcome a federal administration that views citizens who are eligible to be tribal members as individuals with separate and unique visions and needs, not as property of a tribal government or as a caricature of who authoritarians claim them to be.

(1) The level of crime and alcohol/drug abuse condoned in many reservation communities has direct correlation to the health and safety of women and children.

Required to address the crisis:

(1) Provisions to control crime and drugs.
a. This tends to get lost in a focus on the “background” or “underlying” public health conditions; and
b. Trying to put everything under the rubric of public health leads to treating the issues indirectly rather than directly, implying as it does that people need treatment rather than protection.

(2) Provisions to address corruption of leadership on many reservations
a. This is rarely addressed by the federal government.
b. This is vital, as leadership affects the temperament of a community. Further, there are cases in which leadership themselves are complicit to abuses – as public testimony showed at a Spirit Lake town hall meeting in February 2013 and in witness testimony to the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs in June 2014.

(3) Provision for protection of women and children:
a. Tribal governments need to partner with proven organizations (such as Operation Underground Rescue, Veterans for Child Rescue, and others) to combat sex trafficking on reservations. These organizations have toolkits already to go, as well as resources to conduct operations to rescue victims. All they need is an ok and request from a tribal entity to partner with them.

b. REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES in tribal governments, police, social services, schools, courts and hospitals and ANY PROGRAMMING RELATED TO CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES to pass strict background checks. Anyone with any record related to domestic or sexual abuse should not be allowed to serve in these positions. Permanently fire any employee convicted of domestic or sexual abuse of any person.

c. Set up a National hotline/safehouse mechanism so that tribal victims can report abuse without fear of retribution from their community or corrupt state entities that are partnering with tribes. This hotline should not be run by the federal, state, or tribal governments or agencies and organizations beholden to them. It should be a system that uses groups mentioned in action item #1. Funding these groups would allow them to set up regional outposts that can quickly and effectively rescue and provide victim services.

d. Provide a mechanism for victims to emancipate themselves from their tribal community if they so choose.

Lastly, government at all levels needs to stop using tax dollars to fix problems created by earlier tax dollars. Government has viewed tribal families (and all other families) as wards of the state. This view was established in the 1930’s by Felix Cohen and the Roosevelt administration and has proven nothing but disastrous. The federal government implemented programs and appropriated funds that created dependency and destroyed personal responsibility and the role of parents. Government agencies then implemented more programs and appropriated more funds for yet more bureaucracy in attempt to address the problems created by the first wave of programs and funding. Each layer of additional programs and bureaucracy has only added to the crisis – never solving anything – as evidenced by the last 90 years of increasing crises in Indian Country under the Roosevelt era policies.

The ACF’s proposed framework calls for even more government funding and bureaucracy to solve what government funding and bureaucracy created in the first place, and throws in additional grants for programs such as Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance – which has no relevance in the crisis of Missing and Murdered Native Americans.

Governments–and government bureaucrats–do not make good parents. Intact families, with fathers who understand and honor their God ordained role as guide, protector, and provider — are the surest defense against having missing and murdered Americans.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
administrator@caicw.org

Tell Congress How to Best Meet the Needs of Native Children

 Comments Off on Tell Congress How to Best Meet the Needs of Native Children
Mar 132020
 
Little girl on trike

The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children (also known as the congressional Commission on Native Children, or CNC) wants to hear your experience as a child with tribal heritage – OR – raising children who have tribal heritage. Too often, Commissions such as this have heard from only one segment of the population. However, this Commission – which is tasked by Congress to identify new strategies for lasting solutions and report back to them – wants to hear from ALL who have experience – no matter the relationship. Everyone matters.

– If you are an individual with tribal heritage – what were some of the most beneficial experiences you had growing up? What programs, entities, or individuals helped your growth most? Which experiences were most hurtful or destructive? Again, you can do this anonymously if you choose.

– If you are a parent, grandparent, other relative or foster/adoptive parent who is eligible for membership in a federal tribe but prefer to raise your child outside of the reservation system, please let the Commission know why. Your testimony can be anonymous and will help them to understand tribal members who choose not to be under tribal jurisdiction, as well as help them to assess whether living outside of government programs is beneficial to children.

– If you are a parent, grandparent, extended relative, or adoptive parent who is NOT eligible for membership, YOUR TESTIMONY IS JUST AS RELEVANT AND VITAL.

Has any government – federal, state, tribal or county – attempted to interfere with your

  • chosen worldview?
  • relationship with your extended family/parents/child/children, or
  • method of raising children

If so – how has this affected the well-being of child/children involved?

~

HOW TO SEND

Written testimony is to be given just as much weight as oral testimony and CAN be anonymous.

To send signed testimony identifying you and/or the child – Send your testimony directly to the Commission at: asbwsnc@gmail.com

See near the bottom of the page for how to submit testimony anonymously.

~

WHAT TO SEND

“The Commission will focus its recommendations on solutions to issues that would improve the health, safety, and well-being of Native children, including: child welfare; physical, mental, and behavioral health; educational and vocational opportunities; school district policies and practices; access to cultural and extracurricular activities; juvenile justice; early education and development; wraparound services for Native children.”

It is important to tell your child’s story. Your honest opinion about any of what is described above is important. The Commission needs to know your observations and experience – good or bad. They won’t know the full spectrum of experiences if they continually hear only from the same sources.

Also – if your child has struggles in certain areas, let the Commission know why you think that might be and what methods have been used to try to resolve it.

One federal program, the Administration of Children and Families (ACF), has a budget of about 50 billion and “awards on the average $647 Million to Native Americans through programs like Head Start… TANF, LIHEAP,…and the Administration for Native Americans, to name a few.” Have any of ACF programs benefited your child? Why or why not? Which government programs have helped? Which have hurt?

If your child is doing well physically, emotionally, academically, and/or spiritually – let the Commission know and tell them which factors you believe helped your child attain that well-being. Was there a close relationship that inspired them? A particular tribal, federal, school or church program? – OR no program at all – just stable, loving home life? If so, the Commission NEEDS to know this.

If a Commission hears only from Social Service professionals who continually say ALL Native Children suffer from (fill in the blank) and All NEED a certain social service program to get better… than that is what they will decide needs to be done. If the Commission is not able to obtain alternate data, it will rely on the data social services, organizations and agencies give it.
If you have a different story – please tell it. If the best outcome for a child is in a stable and loving home setting, independent of government programs, the Commission needs to know this.

All the below suggested topics are OPTIONAL. We are putting them here merely to generate thought concerning current federal Indian policy.

You could choose to include any other issue related to your child that you feel needs addressing, including any words or phrases commonly used by governments or organizations when referring to children of heritage that you feel diminish your child.

These are some of the words, phrases and sentences found in the legislation enacting the Commission or providing data to the Commission. What are the thoughts and inferences behind those words? Do they paint a correct or incorrect perception of your child? Are they truthful or paternalistic and condescending? Do they promote children or protect victim-hood? Do you feel ‘triggered’ by any of the words and inferences made by government agents and policies, or do they seem correct to you?

  • “The Wrongs We Are Doing Native American Children,”
  • “The protective role of Native American culture and language”
  • “Complex program requirements and limited resources stymie efforts to reduce the disparities among Native children.”
  • “Acts of Self-Determination Foster Strong Native Families and Communities”
  • “Native Language Holds Culture, Culture Holds Language, and Both Hold Wellness”
  • “Stakeholders” (when referring to a selective group that you don’t believe includes you)
  • Data on all “Native children” is required “to see how well children are cared for” and that the “rights of children and families are adhered to.”
  • ICWA “protects the best interest of the Indian Child and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.”
  • “Part of ensuring the safety and security of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children is having basic data collected that provides information on their circumstances.”
  • Under the AFCARS Rule, agencies can collect and keep “information on children who are not enrolled.”
  • They will examine the “unique challenges Native children face”
  • They will build “on the strengths and leadership of Native communities, with the goal of developing a sustainable system that delivers wrap-around services to Native children.”
  • “Resources and supports for Native children are currently inappropriate, insufficient, or limited by bureaucracy so that they are ineffective.”
  • “The vision of Native children and youth who are resilient, safe, healthy, and secure requires many types of evidence, including a wide range of evaluation data, descriptive research studies, performance measures, innovative practice models, financial and cost data, survey statistics, and analyses of program administrative data; all contributing to shared strengths-focused narratives relevant and useful to tribal leadership and stakeholders.”

OPTIONAL Adoption/Foster care Questions: [Wording is pulled from the conclusions of a 1998 pilot study report]
1. Does placing American Indian children in foster/adoptive non-Indian homes puts them at great risk for experiencing psychological trauma leading to the development of long-term emotional and psychological problems in later life?
2. Are there unique factors of Indian children being placed in non-Indian homes that create damaging effects in the later lives of the children?
3. Do American Indians have a cognitive process different from non-Indians – a cognitive difference in the way Indian children receive, process, integrate and apply new information—in short, a difference in learning style”?
a. Is the difference in learning style a cognitive difference in race, a familial difference, an issue unique to your child, or a symptom of fetal alcohol effects?
4. Are the ties between Indian children and their birth families and culture extremely strong, and the ties between Indian children and non-Indian foster/adoptee families only “foster parent-tie-to-Indian child, not Indian child-ties-to-foster parent?”
5. Do American Indian adults who were adopted into non-Indian families as children have greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers from non-Indian and Indian homes?
6. Do Indian adoptees, regardless of age at placement, list identity with their family and their tribe as their first priority, and the sorrow of not knowing their culture, language, heritage and family as a life-long, often emotionally debilitating anguish?

Encourage as many people as possible to send in their testimony. There has been a long history of misinformation concerning children who have heritage, and it will take the stories of quite a few people to begin to correct the mind-view of government agencies.

~

TO PROVIDE ANONYMOUS TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION:

For the Commission to receive anonymous testimony, signed testimony must be given to a trusted CNC Commissioner who will then verify it, remove identifying data, and deliver as anonymous to the full Commission. Elizabeth Morris, chair of CAICW, is a CNC Commissioner.
Elizabeth will keep your signed copy in a protected file and deliver the anonymous copy to the Commission.

You can submit your testimony to Elizabeth Morris at:
administrator@caicw.org

or mail through USPO to:
PO Box 460, Hillsboro, ND 58045

Other Commissioners of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native
Children who can receive signed testimony and provide an anonymous copy to the Commission are:

Gloria O’Neill (Chair)
President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.
Alaska

Tami DeCoteau, Ph.D. (Co-Chair)
DeCoteau Trauma-Informed Care & Practice, PLLC
North Dakota

Carlyle Begay
Former State Senator
Arizona

Dolores Subia BigFoot, Ph.D.
Director, Indian Country Child Trauma Center
Oklahoma

Jesse Delmar
Director, Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety
Arizona

Anita Fineday
Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare Program, Casey Family Programs
Minnesota

Don Atqaqsaq Gray
Board Member, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Alaska

Leander R. McDonald, Ph. D.
President, United Tribes Technical College
North Dakota

Elizabeth (Lisa) Morris
Administrator, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
North Dakota

Melody Staebner
Fargo/West Fargo Indian Education Coordinator
North Dakota

How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations

 Comments Off on How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations
Feb 222020
 
Washington praying

02-16-2020 – Paul Strand, CBN News

PHILADELPHIA – As we celebrate Presidents Day, it’s important to remember the first five commanders-in-chief were also all Founding Fathers of the nation. What you may not know is how crucial The Founders’ faith was in America’s beginning. And much of that beginning took place in Philadelphia.

In locations all around colonial Philadelphia, Founders who knew the God of Liberty fought to form a nation of liberty.

Take a Do-it-Yourself Tour

The Providence Forum has organized a self-guided Faith and Freedom Tour to show you how Christianity and the intense desire for liberty in these locations birthed this freest of free nations.

“Why Philadelphia? Because this was the big city. It was much bigger than the little farm town of New York,” Providence Forum founder Peter Lillback told CBN News. “Philadelphia was also centrally located. It was a big city right in the middle.”

Touring around the sights, Lillback described how Bible beliefs backed each step the Founding Fathers took. Standing near a statue of George Washington, Lillback stated the first president personified this.

‘Follow Jesus Christ to Succeed’

“Washington said we need to follow Christ or we’re never going to succeed as a nation. That’s not a minister. That’s not a right-wing conservative fundamentalist. That’s the father of our country!” Lillback exclaimed.

He offered that it’s significant and apropos that Washington’s statue is located right outside Independence Hall since that’s where the Founders declared the colonies’ freedom and formed the fledgling country’s constitution.

Washington led the army that fought for that freedom, then presided over the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and finally led the nation as its first chief executive. But he was always guided by his faith that he held so dear.

How to be a Happy Nation

Lillback explained of Washington, “He’s the one who said, ‘Unless we imitate the Divine Author of our blessed religion in terms of His charity, humility, and specific temperament of mind, we’ll never be a happy nation.'”

In a world used to rule by monarchs, he almost singlehandedly broke Americans out of the habit of being subjects.

“When he was called on to become king, he refused. Because he said, ‘We’re going to let the people decide,'” Lillback shared.

Followers of Christ the Carpenter Met in Carpenters Hall

But many years before that, leaders from the various colonies gathered for the first time and in Philadelphia in 1774 to figure out how to remove the oppressive grip Britain had wrapped around the colonies’ collective neck.

These colonial leaders were overwhelmingly of the Christian faith, following Jesus Christ, a carpenter. And interestingly enough, where they first met was called Carpenters’ Hall.

They longed to unite against Britain but were divided by deep denominational differences and even regional customs. Like when Massachusetts’ John Adams first encountered Washington, the Virginian.

Some Would Shake Hands, Some Would Bow

“They’re all gathered together. They’ve never been in the same room, they’re meeting each other for the first time. John Adams meets this big tall Virginian, George Washington. And they don’t even know how to shake hands. John Adams comes up to shake his hand and George Washington steps back. Because Virginians don’t shake hands. They give a bow,” Lillback explained.

These men gathering in Carpenters’ Hall were taking the actions that would someday give birth to America. Did it begin in rebellion? In bloodshed? It actually began in that hall with prayer.

Standing in front of Carpenters’ Hall, Lillback stated, “This is where the first prayer for the country happens. But not without a debate. They debated the question could they even pray? Not because they didn’t believe in prayer, but because all the different denominations believed that the others were wrong, and they couldn’t fellowship with them,” Lillback related.

The Spark Plug of the American Revolution said ‘I’m no Bigot’

That’s when one of the fieriest radicals against the British stepped into the breach and bridged the gap.

“This is the great accomplishment of Samuel Adams, called the spark plug of the American Revolution, who said, ‘I’m no bigot. I can pray with any man who loves his God and loves his country’,” Lillback said.

Adams called on this First Continental Congress to invite over local Anglican minister Jacob Duche to come and lead them in prayer. Adams was a Congregationalist. Not all that many years before, his people waged war against England’s Anglicans and even beheaded the British king, head of the Anglican church.

They Prayed in Jesus’ Name

But like Samuel Adams, Jacob Duche rose to the occasion, and soon arrived in Carpenters Hall.

“Leads in prayer and he does it in the name of Jesus Christ,” Lillback shared. “So we can honestly say the United States was begun with a prayer meeting.”

He went on, “I think it’s a beautiful thing to realize that American colonialists found a way to come together, and they did it in the Gospel name of Christ, crossing denominational boundaries.”

What these men accomplished, Lillback characterized as, “The spiritual and political first step of the First Continental Congress of the United States.”

And Lillback said of Adams reaching out across the denominational aisle, “It was at that moment that Sam Adams created the American ecumenical spirit, where, in the public square, we can walk over our denominational boundaries.”

Jefferson Wanted Liberty for the Slaves, Too

As the Revolutionary War began, these rebel leaders soon moved into what would become known as Independence Hall. From there, they sent Thomas Jefferson off to come up with the Declaration of Independence. Working nearby, he put together those famed words about life and liberty but also wrote a whole section against slavery.

For those who believe America was just a bunch of uncaring, hard-hearted plantation owners lording it over slaves they felt they had every right to own, the picture was much more complex.

Lillback said of the Declaration’s author, “Jefferson, although a slave owner, realized that they were making the world over again. He said something unique is happening here. And he said, ‘We need to end slavery.'”

Aided by the likes of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson finished and submitted the Declaration to his fellow delegates.

88 Changes to the Declaration of Independence

“It went to the Congress. And we’re told that while it was being debated, Jefferson was fuming in the corner. Because there were some 88 changes that were made to his document,” Lillback said, adding that one of those changes was taking out Jefferson’s idea to wipe out slavery.

But others continued the battle. Opponents of slavery pointed out the scripture from Leviticus engraved in the nearby Liberty Bell.

Lillback stated they’d remark, “Doesn’t that old bell say, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land to ALL inhabitants thereof?’ And this became the great icon of the abolitionists’ assault against slavery. And they’re the ones who named it the Liberty Bell.”

Accepting All Men are Sinners, All are Depraved

Meanwhile, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, the Founders accepted the Bible’s saying all men are sinners and in their depravity can’t be trusted.

Lillback recalled, “There’s an amazing story that happens in James Madison’s record of the Constitutional Convention. They’re debating how they should distribute votes. And one of the large states says…

READ MORE – https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/february/how-founding-fathers-who-loved-the-god-of-liberty-and-their-freedom-built-the-freest-of-free-nations

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act

 Comments Off on The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act
Oct 212019
 
The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act - https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

By Elizabeth S. Morris

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Helms School of Government in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

‘Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law.’

Preface

My husband and I began our lives together in a symbiotic alcoholic-enabler relationship in the late 70’s. With our family on the edge of self-destruction in 1987, my husband, an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, born and raised on the Leech Lake reservation, had a transformational experience which changed his worldview and led him to take our family in a new direction. 

Having watched many of his relatives suffer within the reservation system, he began to see reservation violence and crime as an outcome of current federal Indian policy more than it was about past policy. This led us to forming an advocacy in the late 90’s for families hurt by federal Indian policy.  We did our best to share hope and life, as inadequate as we were, by assisting extended family in our home, neighbors in our community, and strangers across the nation. We never did it for money; there was never any money. Everything we did came from passion for the lives of our children, nieces and nephews, and extended communities.

Unfortunately, reservation crime, corruption, drug abuse and violence have continued to increase over the years. My husband has since passed away and I am a widow, continuing the work we had begun in 1996.

This thesis compiles some of the documented history, philosophy, and consequences of federal Indian policy. It also includes a preliminary quantitative causal comparative survey with 1351 participants – 551 of whom identify tribal heritage – and explores the relationship between differences.

We serve a powerful God with whom all things are possible.  Our job is to serve in the capacity He has given us, even if we do not understand why, and then enjoy watching what He does next. 

Abstract

This paper will examine the philosophical underpinnings of current federal Indian policy and its physical, emotional, and economic consequences on individuals and communities.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission found in 1990 that “[T]he Government of the United States has failed to provide civil rights protection for Native Americans living on reservations” (W. B. Allen 1990, 2). As Regan (2014) observes, individuals have been denied full title to their property – and thus use of the property as leverage to improve their economic condition (Regan 2014). Tribal executive and judicial branches have been accused of illegal search and seizures, denial of right to counsel or jury, ex parte hearings and violations of due process and equal protection (W. B. Allen 1990, 3). Violence, criminal activity, child abuse and trafficking are rampant on many reservations (DOJ 2018). Largely because of crime and corruption, many have left the reservation system. The last two U.S. censuses’ report 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country (US Census Bureau 2010).

Research suggests current federal Indian policy and the reservation system are built on philosophies destructive to the physical, emotional and economic health of individual tribal members. This paper contends that allowing property rights for individual tribal members, enforcing rule of law within reservation systems, supporting law enforcement, and upholding full constitutional rights and protections of all citizens would secure the lives, liberties and properties of affected individuals and families.

Introduction

For almost 200 years the U.S. federal government has claimed wardship over members of federally recognized Indian tribes.  Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights: 

  • Some say the nineteenth century U.S. Supreme Court cases known as the ‘Marshall Trilogy’ contradict tribal sovereignty.  Others say they uphold it.
  • Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.
  • Some say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
  • Some argue that the Constitution never had authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress. 
  • Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.

Inherent, retained tribal sovereignty was reality for tribal governments prior to the formation of the United States and in the immediate years following its birth, but is not reflected in case law from the 1800s and much of the 1900s. By the time of Andrew Jackson, the United States had taken a position of control. Further, over the last two centuries, the vast majority of tribal leaders accepted large payments for land, accepted federal trust benefits, and submitted to federal government’s de facto power over them.   

Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others.  Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries.  While claiming exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Often cited as justification for the ICWA is a 1998 pilot study by Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.  Locust’s study is said to have shown that “every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).  Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).  The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005).

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” Only twenty adoptees with tribal heritage – total – were interviewed. All were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables. According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects 

(Cleaveland 2015).

Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015).  While supporters of ICWA cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, many children have been hurt by application of the law. 

Questions that need more extensive study include whether children who were adopted into non-Indian families as children show greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers.  Are the ties between children who have tribal heritage and their birth families and culture stronger than that of their peers, no matter the age at adoption?  Other considerations include whether all tribal members support federal policies that mandate their cases be heard only in tribal courts and whether a percentage of persons of tribal heritage believe federal Indian policy infringes on their life, liberty and property.

 The central concern of this paper is how current federal Indian policy has affected the lives, liberty and property of those who have tribal heritage – most specifically the Indian Child Welfare Act.  Through research of the historical foundations of federal Indian policy and a nation-wide comparative survey of family dynamics, this paper will attempt to answer these and other questions.

READ FULL TEXT – https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

Citation

Morris, Elizabeth S. The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Master Thesis, Helms School of Government, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Digital Commons, 2019, 337.  

—————————-

References

Aziz G. Sayigh, Boris V. Babson, A.S. Erickson, Charles S. Dameron, Adam I.W. Schwartzman, Nicholas P. Desatnick. “The Storied History of Dartmouth.” The Dartmouth Review, 10 2006.

25 U.S Code. “15 § 1302.” 1968.

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Abourezk, James G. THE OCCUPATION OF WOUNDED KNEE, 1973 – American Indian Movement. House of Representatives, Wounded Knee: U.S. Government, 1972.

ACF. Tribal Child Counts. Washington DC: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance, 2007.

Adoption of Baby Boy L. No. 53,592 (Kansas Supreme Court, April 3, 1982).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Ahrens, Kym R., Michelle M. Garrison, and Mark E. Courtney. “Health Outcomes in Young Adults From Foster Care and Economically Diverse Backgrounds.” American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014: 10.

AIPRC. American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report, Vol. I. report to provide foundation for understanding of federal Indian policy, law, and history, American Indian Policy Review Commission,, Congress, Washington DC: GPO; Eric.Ed.gov, 1977, 593.

Allen, William B. Commissioner. The Indian Civil Rights Act: United States Commission on Civil Rights Statement. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, U.S. Congress, Washington DC: USCCR, 1990, 16.

Allen, William B. “Email Correspondence.” June 8, 2018.

—. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Allen, William. Review of Federal Indian Policy. Havre d’ Grace, MD: Unpublished, 2010, 25.

Allison Randall, Chief of Staff. “Baaken violence.” DOJ/Office on Violence Against Women. washington DC: DOJ, 9 13, 2013.

Ambrose, of the St John Indians. “Speech at a Conference Held at Watertown, in the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay July 12, 1776.” Edited by Peter Force. American Archives. Ser.5 v.1 ([1776] 1837–53): 839.

Arkes, Hadley. “The Natural Law Challenge.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc) 36, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 961-975.

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence so Children can Thrive. Final Full Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Deptartment of Justice, Washington DC: Dept. of Justice, 2014, 257.

Avalon Project. “Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans.” Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp (accessed June 22, 2016).

Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. 2nd. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2007.

Bastiat, Fredrick. The Law. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1998.

Bellamy, Jennifer L., Geetha Gopalan, and Dorian E. Traube. “A National Study of the Impact of Outpatient Mental Health Services for Children in Long Term Foster Care.” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (University of Chicago) 15, no. 4 (2010): 467-79.

Bender, Albert. “South Dakota Commits Shocking Genocide Against Native Americans by Abducting Their Children.” ICWA INFO. Edited by Native American Rights Foundation. Native American Rights Foundation. February 20, 2015. http://icwa.narf.org/news/1747 (accessed June 22, 2016).

Benedict, Jeff. Without Reservation. New York: Harper, 2000.

Bernholz, Charles D., Laura K. Weakly, Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, and Karin Dalziel. “As long as grass shall grow and water run: The treaties formed by the Confederate States of America and the tribes in Indian Territory, 1861.” Treaties Portal. Love Memorial Library. n.d. http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/.

BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2019. https://www.bia.gov/bia (accessed 4 16, 2019).

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings.” Federal Register, June 14, 2016: 369.

—. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 9 2, 2016. http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ (accessed Sept 3, 2016).

—. “ICWA Guidelines teleconference.” NWX-DEPT OF INTERIOR-NBC (US). Washington DC: Department of Interior, 2015. 1-114.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act.” US Deptartment of the Interior: Indian Affairs. June 8, 2016. http://www.indianaffairs.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/IndianChildWelfareAct/index.htm (accessed June 8, 2016).

BIA. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Notice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, DC: Federal Government, 2003, 68180 -68184 (5 pages).

Bickel, Alexander M. “Citizenship in the American Constitution.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1973.

Bird, Allyson. Broken Home: The Save Veronica story. News Article, Charleston: Charleston City Paper, 2012.

Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary Free. 2. The Law Dictionary, 2018.

Blackstone, William. Blackstone’s Commentaries. Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803.

Bolick, Clint. “Native American Children: Separate But Equal?” Hoover Institution. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.hoover.org/research/native-american-children-separate-equal (accessed July 27, 2016).

Bordewich, Fergus M. Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1996.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union. 6. J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1856.

Bowdoin, James. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online – National Archives. Edited by Philander D. Chase. University Press of Virginia. July 30, 1776. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378 (accessed 9 24, 2018).

Brackeen v Zinke. 4:17-cv-00868-O (US District Court, Northern District Of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 10 4, 2018).

Braund, Kathryn. “Summer 1814: The Treaty of Ft. Jackson ends the Creek War.” National Park Service. 8 15, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/articles/treaty-of-fort-jackson.htm (accessed 3 11, 2019).

Brief for Amicus Curiae of Thomas Lee Morris, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Supporting Respondent. 03-107 (United States v. Billy Jo Lara, On Writ of Certiorari, December 15, 2003).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmation (Brackeen v. Zinke, 2018). 4:17-CV-00868 (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, February 2019).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation in Support of the Respondent. 16-1498 (Supreme Court of the United States, Oct 30, 2018).

Brown, Thomas. “Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric.” Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2006: 100-129.

CAICW. “Administrator.” Letters from Families. Ronan: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 9, 2004.

—. “Administrator.” Growing Crime, Changing Dynamics. Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 27, 2014.

—. “Testimony from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.” CAICW.org. June 24, 2014.

TESTIMONY: CHILD PROTECTION AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION:
(accessed May 19, 2016).

CAICW. The New ICWA Rules. Public Policy, Fargo: CAICW, 2016.

Cano, Regina Garcia. 2 Malnourished Girls Found on South Dakota Reservation. News, Seattle: Seattle Times, 2016.

CDC. “The Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/index.html (accessed 3 2018).

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014.

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2011.

Cherokee Nation. Tribal Citizenship. 2019. https://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Cherokee v. Georgia. 30 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 12 31, 1831).

Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce. “The Surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Montana Territory.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). October 5, 1877. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4856/the-surrender-of-chief-joseph-of-the-nez-perce-montana-territory-october-5-1877-chief-josephs-own-story/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Chief Seattle. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches. 1 12, 1854.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interest of the Child.” Child Welfare Information Gateway. HHS/ ACYF/ACF Children’s Bureau. 2016. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf (accessed 3 11, 2017).

Churchill, Ward, interview by Joshua Frank. Accusations and Smear: An Interview with Professor Ward Churchill, (Part 1 of 5) (9 19, 2005).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. “Colonialism: A Realistic Approach.” Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 55, no. 3 (4 1945): 167-181.

—. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

Cohen, Felix S. “Original Indian Title.” Edited by Lucy Kramer Cohen. Minn. L. Rev. (Yale U. Press) 32 (1947): 28.

Congress. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America.” Journal of the Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, May 1775: 120.

Cross, Suzanne L, Angelique G Day, and Lisa G Byers. “American Indian Grand Families: A Qualitative Study Conducted with Grandmothers and Grandfathers Who Provide Sole Care for Their Grandchildren.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 25, no. 4 (12 2010): 371–383.

CTWS. “Declaration of Sovereignty.” Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tribe of Oregon. 2016.

Declaration of Sovereignty
(accessed 4 8, 2019).

Curry, Brett W. “Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism, by Dalia Tsuk Mitchell.” Law and Politics Book Review, Sept 2007: 764-767.

Dawes Commission. Congressional Commission, Washington DC: Congress, 1895.

De Venter, M., K. Demyttenaere, and R. Bruffaerts. “The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and mental health in adulthood. A systematic literature review].” Tijdschr Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2013): 259-68.

DHHS/IHS. Trends in Indian Health. Statistics, Washington DC: Indian Health Service, 1997.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

DOI. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1958.

DOI/BIA. “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 /. 2 25, 2015. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-029447.pdf (accessed March 15, 2015).

DOI-BIA. Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Statistics, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, Washigton DC: Department of Interior, 2003.

DOJ. “Environment and Natural Resources Division.” The United States Department of Justice. 5 24, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/timeline-event/congress-passes-first-indian-trade-and-intercourse-act (accessed 2 10, 2018).

—. “Indian Country Justice Statistics.” Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 4 30, 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=200000 (accessed 8 19, 2018).

—. “Lead up to the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946.” United States Deptartment of Justice. 5 12, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/lead-indian-claims-commission-act-1946 (accessed 6 1, 2019).

—. “Transcript from the First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force.” American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Bismarck: Department of Justice, 2013. 46.

Dudley, Richard G. Jr. MD. “Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police.” Edited by Harvard Kennedy School. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin ( U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice), 2015: 1-22.

Duro v. Reina. 495 U.S. 676 (U.S., 1990).

Eaglewoman, Angelique, and G. William Rice. “American Indian Children and U.S. Indian Policy.” Tribal Law Journal 16 (2016): 1-29.

Enlow, Michelle Bosquet, Emily Blood, and Byron Egeland. “Sociodemographic risk, developmental competence, and PTSD symptoms in young children exposed to interpersonal trauma in early life.” Journal of Traumatic Stress (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), 2013: 686-694.

Executive Office of the President. Native Youth Report. Policy Brief, Washington DC: The White House, 2014.

FBI. “Indian Country Crime.” FBI.gov. 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/indian-country-crime (accessed July 27, 2016).

Feldon, Gai. Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Pub Co, 2014.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine (National Institutes of Health) 14, no. 4 (5 1998): 245-58.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

—. “Existing Indian Family Doctrine.” Letter to supporters. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Indian Child Welfare Law Center, 2 21, 2004.

Fineday, Anita. The ICWA Expert Witness and the Role of the Attorney for the Parent. Powerpoint, Casey Family Programs, Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2012.

Flatten, Mark. Death on a Reservation. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute, 2015.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “Anishinaabe Law and the Round House.” Albany Government Law Review, 2017: 24.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

FOCSE. Tribal & State to Establish & Enforce Child Support. Publication, Washington DC: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement , 2005.

Fort, Kate. Initial Observations on the ICWA Regulations. Blog, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. 2018 ICWA by the Numbers. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2019.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2015. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2016. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Turtle Talk, 2017.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2017. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2018.

Franson, Janet, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Homicide Investigator (Ret), Founder, Lost and Missing in Indian Country (9 7, 2016).

GAO. Review of American Indian Policy Review Commission. Accounting and Financial Reporting, General Government Division, Congress, Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 1977, 14.

General Congress. “Declaration of Independence.” University of Oklahoma College of Law. July 4, 1776. http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/decind.shtml.

George, Robert P. “Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2269.

Gerard, Forrest J. Assistant Secretary of Interior. Letter, Department of Interior, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 32.

Goldwater Institute. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PARTS OF INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. July 7, 2015. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/equal-protection/goldwater-institute-files-class-action-lawsuit-aga/ (accessed June 20, 2016).

Gould, L Scott. “The Congressional Response to Duro v. Reina: Compromising Sovereignty and the Constitution.” Edited by UC Davis Law School. U.C. Davis Law Review 28, no. 1 (1994): 53, 63 69-75.

GWIF. Foster Care Statistics 2016. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families; Children’s Bureau. 2018. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Haas, Theodore H. “Ten Years of Tribal Government Under I.R.A.” DOI.gov. United States Indian Service. 1947. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/library/internet/subject/upload/Haas-TenYears.pdf (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Hagedorn, Nancy L. “”A Friend to go between Them”: The Interpreter as Cultural Broker during Anglo-Iroquois Councils, 1740-70.” Ethnohistory (Duke University Press) 35, no. 1 (1988): 60-80.

Hagen v. Utah. (US Supreme Court, 1994).

Hallie Bongar White, Jane Larrington. “INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY.” Justice.gov. April 21, 2014. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/legacy/2014/04/21/intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf (accessed July 28, 2016).

Harper, Fowler Vincent. “Natural Law in American Constitutional Theory.” Michigan Law Review 26, no. 62 (1927): 62-82.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hazard, S., ed. Pennsylvania Archives (1st Series). Vol. 3. Philadelphia, PA: Joseph Severns, 1852.

Herman, Ellen. Adoption Statistics. Department of History, University of Oregon. 2 24, 2012. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Hintz, James R. “Wilson v. Marchington: The Erosion of TribalCourt Civil Jurisdiction in the Aftermath of Strate v.A-1 Contractors.” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1999: 145.

Holder, Eric. “Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks During the White House Tribal Nations Conference.” Justice News. Washington DC, 12 3, 2014.

Horwitz, Sara. “The hard lives – and high suicide rate – of Native American children on reservations.” National Security. March 9, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives–and-high-suicide-rate–of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html (accessed July 27, 2016).

Hyland, Duane. Running Head: Considering Indian Country. Topic Proposal, Rapid City: NFSH.org, 2014.

ICC. Indian Claims Commission Final Report. Final Commission Report, United States, Washington DC: GPO, 1978.

IHS. Indian Health Service. 2019. https://www.ihs.gov/aboutihs/ (accessed 3 28, 2019).

In re Alexandria Y. G018179 (Fourth Dist., Div. Three, 5 31, 1996).

In re Bridget R. B195282 (Cal. App. 4th, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 January 19, 1996).

In re Santos Y. B144822 (Cal. App, 4th, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 2001).

In re Z.R. and L.R., adoptive parents v . 27-JV-FA-17-117 (MN Court of Appeals, 11 2017).

Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Demographics. Statistical Facts, Oklahoma City: Indian Country Child Trauma Center, 2005.

Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia, PA: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938.

Jackson, Andrew. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal” .” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990 (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]) Record Group 46 (Dec. 1830).

Jackson, Jack C. “Director of Government Affairs, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).” National Conference of American Indians. February 12, 1999. http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/cvrightcensus.htm (accessed 2007).

James Bell Associates, Inc. “Analysis of Funding Resources and Strategies Among American Indian Tribes.” Administration of Children and Families. March 31, 2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fund_res.pdf (accessed June 22, 2016).

Janney, Samuel M. The Life of William Penn. 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852.

Jefferson, Thomas. “To Major John Cartwrigt Monticello, June 5, 1824.” American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. Edited by University of Groningen. 1824. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php (accessed June 30, 2016).

Jerry Gardner, Executive Director Tribal. “Tribal Law & Policy Institute.” Santa Monica: ACF, 8 2, 2013.

Johnson v. M’Intosh. 21 U.S. 543; 1823 U.S. 293; 5 L. Ed. 681; 8 Wheat. 543 (U.S., 2 1823).

Jones, B.J. Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 2006. http://www2.mnbar.org/sections/children/history.pdf (accessed April 29, 2007).

Jore, Rick, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Former Montana State Representative (11 15, 2016).

Kaplan, Sarah. “Native American couple sues to let their child be adopted by a white family.” Washington Post. June 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/native-american-couple-sues-to-let-their-child-be-adopted-by-a-white-family/ (accessed June 21, 2016).

Karnowski, Steve. Feds Say Native Mob Gang Dented but Work Remains. Minneapolis: ABC News, 2013.

Katz, Colleen C, Mark E Courtney, and Elizabeth Novotny. “Pre-foster Care Maltreatment Class as a Predictor of Maltreatment in Foster Care.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 34, no. 1 (2 2017): 35-49.

Kelley, Marylouise (ACF). “Service needs in rural North Dakota and Montana.” Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Director. Washington DC: ACF, 9 23, 2013.

Kelly, John. “38 Years After ICWA, Feds to Collect Data on Native American Foster Youth.” The Chronicle of Social Change, April 8, 2016.

Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF). “Changes at ACF: Our own takes Casey position at ACF/BIA.” Washington DC: ACF, 8 5, 2013.

Kingfisher, Billie J. Jr. Dogma: Felix S. Cohen, The Indian Law Survey and the Spanish Model. Dissertation, Masters of Arts in History, Oklahoma State University, Graduate College, 2016.

Kinney, Adam F. “The Tribe, the Empire, and the Nation: Enforceability of Pre-Revolutionary Treaties with Native American Tribes.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 39, no. 3 (2007-2008): 897.

Krakoff, Sarah. “They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum.” Stanford Law Review 69 (Feb 2017): 491-548.

Kunesh, Patrice H. A Call for an assessment of the Welfare of Indian Children in South Dakota. Article, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); University of South Dakota, Harvard University, Vermillion: South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 247, 2007.

LaBeau v. Dakota. 2:92-CV-203 (US Federal District Court: West. Dist. Mich., March 17, 1993).

Lawrence, William J. “In Defense of Indian Rights.” Beyond the Color Line; New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America (Hoover Institution Press), 2002: 391-404.

Legal Inf Inst. Wex Legal Dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell Law School, 2019.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

—. “Split Feathers Study.” American Indian Adoptees. n.d. https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/p/split-feathers-study-by-carol-locust.html (accessed 2 5, 2018).

—. “Split Feathers: Adult American Indians Who Were Placed In Non-Indian Families As Children.” Native Canadian. n.d. http://nativecanadian.ca/Native_Reflections/split_feather_syndrome.htm (accessed 2 5, 2018).

Locust, Carol. Training Director. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center , University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Lynch, Judy D. “Indian Sovereignty and Judicial Interpretations of the Indian Civil Rights Act.” Washington University Law Review 1979, no. 3,16 (1979): 897.

MacDonald, Peter. “White House Address on the Navajo Code Talkers.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Nov. 27, 2017.

Malone, Tim. The Role of Indian Tribes in our Constitutional System – Two Persistent Problems. Conference, Olympia: Unpublished, 1988.

Margold, Nathan R. “Wheeler-Howard Act–Interpretation” Question 9.” Op. Sol. I.D. Ind. Aff 1917-1974 1 (1934): 484, 490-491.

Marston, Blythe W. “Alaska Native Sovereignty: The Limits of the Tribe-Indian Country Test.” Cornell International Law Journal 17, no. 2 (1984): 33.

Martin, Kenneth. “Thomas Sullivan.” Indian Affairs. Washington DC: Indian Affairs, 11 22, 2013.

Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF). “Region 8 damaging tribal relations.” Spirit Lake. Washington DC: ACF, 11 1, 2013.

McMullen, Marrianne. “Decision on Proposed Removal.” Memorandum. Washington DC: ACF, 5 6, 2016.

McNeil, Kent. “Sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples in North America.” Articles and Book Chapters (Osgoode Hall Law School of York University) 22, no. 2 (2016): 25.

McWilliams, Paul. “English Common Law: Embodiment of the Natural Law.” The Western Australian Jurist 1 (2010): 128-131.

Means, Russell. “Statement to the Senate Special Committee on Indian Affairs.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Jan. 30, 1989.

Meggitt, Jane. Government Money for Native Americans. Online, Bisfluent, Leaf Group Ltd, 2017.

Meyers, Peter C. “Frederick Douglass’s America: Race, Justice, and the Promise of the Founding.” First Principle Series, Jan 11, 2011, 35 ed.: 18.

Michael R. Tilus, PsyD, MP (HHS Public Health). “Letter of Grave Concern: Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services Grievances.” To Ms. Sue Settle, Chief, Dpt of Human Services, BIA. Devils Lake, North Dakota, March 3, 2012.

Miles v. Family Court for Jud’l Dist of Chinle. (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Arizona January 2008).

Mission Indian Agency. “The Wheeler-Howard Bill – Questions and Answers.” Bulletin. Riverside, CA, April 16, 1934.

Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield . 87-980 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 3, 1989).

Mitchell, Donald Craig. Wampum. New York: The Overlook Press, 2016.

MN Dept Human Serv. “Tribal/State Agreement.” St. Paul, Minnesota: State of Minnesota, Feb 22, 2007. 37.

Montana v. United States. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981).

Moore, Johnston. “The Misapplication of The Indian Child Welfare Act.” The Chronicle of Social Change. April 1, 2015. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/the-misapplication-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act/10872 (accessed June 21, 2016).

Morandi, Larry. “Tribal Trust Lands: From Litigation to Consultation.” States and Tribes: Building New Traditions, August 2004.

Morris v. Tanner. 160 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2005) (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, April 2006).

Morris, Elizabeth. Child Abuse within Indian Country. Literature Review, Helm’s School of Gov’t, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2016.

Morris, Elizabeth. Spirit Lake Town Hall, February 27. Primary, witness, Fort Totten: CAICW, 2013.

Morris, Elizabeth. The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections. Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2017.

Morris, Roland John. Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Seattle: Concerning Tribal Jurisdiction, 1998.

Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 6 17, 1974).

MSU. “The French and Indian War.” MSU College of Social Science. Edited by Randall Schaetzl. Dept of Geography, Environment and Spatial Science. 2018. http://www.geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/frenchindian_war.html.

NARA. “Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes (The Dawes Commission), 1893-1914.” National Archoves. June 26, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes (accessed 4 26, 2019).

—. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal”.” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990;. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]. Dec. 6, 1830. (accessed 2018).

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

NAU. “Indigenous Voices of the Colorado Plateau: The Merriam Report of 1928.” Northern Arizona University Library. Northern Arizona University. 2005. http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/indigenous_voices/merriam_report.html (accessed 6 14, 2019).

NCAI. Trust Land. 2017. http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/trust-land (accessed 11 17, 2017).

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012, 2012.

Nicolai, Shanley Swanson, and Merete Saus. “Acknowledging the Past while Looking to the Future: Conceptualizing Indigenous Child Trauma.” Child Welfare Journal 92, no. 5 (2012): 110.

NICWA. Testimony of Sarah L. Kastelic. Testimony, Washington DC: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 2015, 1-17.

NICWA, SAMHSA. “Native Children: Trauma and Its Effects.” Trauma-Informed Care Fact Sheet. Portland: National Indian Child Welfare Association, April 2014.

NICWA/AAIA. A Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. White paper, Washington DC: Nat’l Indian Child Welfare Assoc. & Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 2013, 1-20.

NPS. “Pushmataha.” National Park Service. Sept. 14, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/people/pushmataha.htm.

O’Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons, and Co.,, 1855.

Occom, Samson. “Short, Plain, and Honest Account of my Self.” Edited by Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Bernd Peyer, The Elders Wrote (Dartmouth College Archives), (1768) 1982: 12-18.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States. (United States Supreme Court, 1824).

Otis, D.S. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. Edited by Francis Paul Prucha. University of Oklahoma Press , 1973.

Pommersheim, Frank. “Written testimony in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.” (104th Cong. 1st Sess.) 1996: 432.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes.” Montana Law Review 59, no. 1, Article 4 (Winter 1998): 51-80.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes: A Reply to Professor Jensen.” Montana Law Review, 1995/1999: 19.

Prucha, Frances Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Publius. “Federalist Papers.” Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman School of Law. 1787. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp.

Pushmataha. “Response to Chief Tecumseh on War Against the Americans.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Mississippi, 1811.

Raab. “Andrew Jackson.” Raab Collection. 10 15, 2019. https://www.raabcollection.com/andrew-jackson-autograph/andrew-jackson-signed-sold-president-andrew-jackson-original-instructions (accessed 3 10, 2019).

Reagan, Ronald. “Statement on Indian Policy, 1983.” The American Presidency Project. Edited by John Woolley, & Gerhard Peters. Univ. of Calif, Santa Barbara. 1 24, 1983. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41665 (accessed 6 30, 2017).

Regan, Shawn. “5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty.” Forbes. 3 14, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#739501c6cc62 (accessed 12 16, 2016).

Reid v. Covert. 701 (US Supreme Court, 1956).

Reply Brief for the United States. 03-107 (U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC 2003).

Rice v. Cayetano. 528 U.S. 495 (U.S., 2000).

Robinson Jr, John. “The Binding Guidance Principle: Using the Indian Trust Doctrine to Trump the APA.” American Indian Law Journal 4:1 (2015): 26.

Roe Bubar, Marc Winokur, Winona Bartlemay. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Investigative Report, West Hollywood: Tribal Law and Policy Institute, 2007.

Rollings, Willard Hughes. “Citizenship and Suffrage: The Native American Struggle For Civil Rights in the American West, 1830-1965.” Nevada Law Journal 5, no. 126 (Fall 2004): 126-140.

Rolnick, Addie. “The Promise of Mancari: Indian Political Rights as Racial Remedy.” NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) 86 (2011): 102-183.

Roozen, Sylvia, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Gerjo Kok, David Townend, Jan Nijhuis, and Leopold Curfs. “Worldwide Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review Including Meta-Analysis.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 40, no. 1 (1 2016): 18–32.

Roser, Max. Child Mortality. Statistics, Our World in Data, 2019.

Rowley, Sean. 43rd Symposium on the American Indian at Northeastern State University . April 17, 2015. http://m.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/icwa-discussed-at-symposium-seminar/article_08846b3a-e543-11e4-8421-7744ec7971c6.html?mode=jqm (accessed April 20, 2015).

Ruoff, A LaVonne Brown, ed. “Samson Occom (Mohegan) (1723-1792).” n.d.

Russell Means: About. 2014. http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/about/ (accessed October 5, 2014).

Sampson, Dimitra H. Child and Sexual Abuse in Indian Country. Lecture, Sioux Falls: Dept. of Justice, 2007.

Scheel, Ann Birmingham. Arizona Indian Country Report. Annual Report, Phoenix: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011.

Schumacher-Matos, Edward. SD: Indian Foster Care 1: NPR Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry. Ombudsman Report, Ombudsman, National Public Radio, New York: National Public Radio, 2013, 80.

Scofield, Ruth Packwood. Behind the Buckskin Curtain. New York: Carlton Press, Inc., 1992.

Seattle, Chief. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). January 12, 1854. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4706/speech-cautioning-americans-to-deal-justly-with-his-people-january-12-1854/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Skillen v. Menz. 1998 MT 43 (Supreme Court of the State of Montana, March 3, 1998).

Spaith, James. The Native American: At What Level Sovereignty? Draft, Exhibit 1, The White House, U.S. Government, Washington DC: Leonard Garment, Assistant to the President, 1974, 77.

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation. 423 (U.S. Supreme Court, May 15, 1899).

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Stuart, Paul. Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 13th Mandate Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

—. “Continual Rape of 13-yr-old Ignored.” To Superiors at the Administration of Children and Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, June 10, 2014.

—. “Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake.” To DC Superiors with the Administration of Children & Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, May 6, 2014.

—. “Prevented from Testifying.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 7 1, 2014.

—. “Response.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 2 11, 2014.

—. “Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations.” To ACF Superiors in DC. Denver: ACF, April 4, 2014.

—. “Summary of Correspondence.” Denver: ACF, 12 19, 2013.

Talton v. Mayes. 163 U.S. 376, 384 (U.S., 1896).

Texas Dept of Family and Protective Services. Legal Basis for Child Protective Services. Houston, n.d.

The Institute for Government Research. “The Problem of Indian Administration.” Edited by Lewis Meriam. Studies in Administration (The John Hopkins Press), February 1928.

The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online, National Archives. 13 June, 2018. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378. (accessed July 30, 2018).

Turanovic, Jillian J, and Travis C Pratt. “Consequences of Violent Victimization for Native American Youth in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46, no. 6 (6 2017): 1333 – 1350.

Udall, Representative Morris K. “The American Indians and Civil Rights.” Selected Speeches. Washington DC: Arizona University, 10 4, 1965.

United States. “Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, Appendix.” First People. September 20, 1872. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/AgreementWithTheSissetonAndWahpetonBandsOfSiouxIndians1872.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States Commission on Civil Rights. “Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing, Phoenix, AZ.” Washington DC: GPO, September 29, 1988.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

—. “General Allotment Act of 1887.” 24 Stat 388. Washinhgton DC, December 6, 1886.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act OF 1978.” Vols. Public Law 95-608, 25 USC Chapter 2. Washington DC, 1978.

—. “Indian Civil Rights Act.” Vols. Public Law 90–284, 82 Stat. 73. Washington DC, 1968.

—. “P.L. 68-175: Indian Citizenship Act.” 43 Stat. 253, Ch. 233. Washington DC: GPO, June 2, 1924.

—. “The Dawes Act of 1887.” The Avalon Project – Yale Law School. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dawes.asp (accessed 4 6, 2019).

—. “Transcript of Treaty of Fort Laramie.” OurDocuments.gov. April 29, 1868. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=42&page=transcript (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Cherokee 7 Stat., 311.” Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II. Compiled by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, 5 6, 1828. 288-292.

—. “Treaty with the Chippewa.” 2 22, 1855.

—. “Treaty with the Omaha.” Treaties. March 16, 1854. http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Treaties/10_Stat_1043_Omaha.htm (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Sioux – Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands.” First People. February 19, 1867. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/TreatyWithTheSiouxSissetonAndWahpetonBands1867.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States v. Billy Jo Lara. 541 U.S. (U.S. Supreme, 2003).

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

United States v. Rogers. 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (U.S. Supreme, March 9, 1846).

United States v. Wheeler,. 76-1629 (US Supreme Court, March 27, 1978).

Univ of Illinois. “Full text of “Monthly catalog of United States Government publications”.” LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSTIY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN. July 1947. http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlycatalogof531947unit2/monthlycatalogof531947unit2_djvu.txt (accessed 11 16, 2016).

Univ. Alaska. Indian Country Statute (1948). 2018. http://tribalmgmt.uaf.edu/tm112/Unit-2/Indian-Country-Statute-1948.

University of Oklahoma. Childhood Trauma Series in Indian Country. Presentation, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center, 2013.

US Census Bureau. Nonwhite Population by Race. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Legislative Reference Service, 1960.

US Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, US. Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: US. Dept of Commerce, 2010.

US Census Bureau. Tribal Complete Count Committee Handbook. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: United States Census 2000, 2001, 4-99.

US Census Bureau. US Census. Statistics, US Census Bureau, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Dept of Commerce, 2000.

US Congress. “Congressional Record ICWA.” 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. 124 (1978): 38101-112.

US Congress, House. Concurrent Resolutions, Indian Affairs. House of Respresentatives, Washington DC: GPO, 1953.

—. “Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Resources, US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs.” Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Washington DC: GPO: 113 Cong. 2nd Sess, June 24, 2014.

US Congress. Conference. S. 2981: An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1977, and for other purposes. House Report: Rpt No. 94-1695, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 94th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1976, 4.

US Congress. House. “H.R. 12533 – Indian Child Welfare Act.” Congress.gov. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1978.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. House Report: H. Rept 104-542, Committee on Ways and Means, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3828: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1996. Congressional Report, Natural Resource Committee: Indian Affairs, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104 Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Senate Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 104TH Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Amendments to the Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 104-574. Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess, June 26, 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-845. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 2nd Sess., May 11, 1988.

—. “Hearings before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate.” Survey of the Conditions of the Indians of the United States. Washington DC: GPO: 70th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1929.

—. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Program. Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess., April 7.8, 1974.

US Congress. Senate. Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment S. 569. Senate Bill, Indian Affairs Committee, Senate, Washington DC: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., 1997.

—. “Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, US Senate and the Committe on Resources, US House of Representatives.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 105-224. Washington DC: GPO: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1997.

—. “Oversight Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-574. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov 10, 1987.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1214: Indian Child Welfare Act. Congressional Report, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 1977.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1962: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment. Congressional Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. S. 721 – An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1974, and for other purposes. Senate Report: S.Rept 93-53, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 1st Sess., 1973.

US Congress: House. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Aflairs and Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.” Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. S.1214, Serial No. 96-42. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong; 2nd Sess., Feb-Mar 9, 1978. 308.

Vattel, Monsieur Emer (Emmerich) de. The Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 6th American. Translated by Esq. Joseph Chitty. West Brookfield, MA: Merriam and Cooke, [1758,1773] 1844.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Victoria, Franciscus De. The First Relectio Of The Reverend Father, Brother Franciscus De Victoria, On The Indians Lately Discovered. 1696. Edited by Johann Georg Simon. Translated by John Pawley Bate. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Ingolstadt, Cologne and Frankfort, 1580.

Vieru, Simona. “Aristotle’s Influence on the Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Western Australian Jurist (Murdoch University) 1 (2010): 115-122.

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. “The Treaty of Logg’s Town, 1752.” 1906: 154–174.

Wald, Patricia M. Assistant Attorney General. Letter, Department of Justice, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 35, 40.

Washington, George. “The Avalon Project: Washington’s Farewell Address.” Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School. 1796. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (accessed September 17, 2015).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

White House. “Documents related to the Indian Claims Commission.” Documents 1973-77, Bradley H. Patterson Files, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Washington DC, 1973-77, 18.

Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth–How Long a Time is That.” California Law Review 63 (5 1975): 601-661.

Wilson, James. “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals.” Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute. 1790-91. http://founding.com/founders-library/american-political-figures/james-wilson/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Woodward, Stephanie. “Suicide is epidemic for American Indian youth: What more can be done?” 100 Reporters. Oct 10, 2012. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340090-suicide-is-epidemic-for-american-indian-youth-what-more-can-be-done (accessed July 27, 2016).

Worcester v. Georgia. (US Supreme Court, 1832).

Read CAICW’s Amicus in the Brackeen ICWA case

 Comments Off on Read CAICW’s Amicus in the Brackeen ICWA case
Feb 272019
 

…’the ICWA imposes sweeping regulations that are at best marginally related to commerce. The ICWA also intrudes on a quintessential area of state law: family and domestic matters. This intrusion obliterates the bedrock constitutional distinction between federal and local power, effectively allowing the federal government free reign to regulate however, and whatever, it wishes simply by invoking the Indian Commerce Clause. The ICWA, therefore, is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s authority under the Indian Commerce Clause.’

The amicus can be read here…

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/christianallianceamicus.pdf

URGENT!! ICWA STRUCK DOWN IN DISTRICT COURT

 Comments Off on URGENT!! ICWA STRUCK DOWN IN DISTRICT COURT
Oct 042018
 
Destination Heaven

FINALLY!
October 4, 2018
Northern District Court of Texas, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00868-0
BRAKEEN v.. ZINKE

ICWA DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Among several other requests that were granted –

F. Indian Commerce Clause Claim
Plaintiffs also claim Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass sections 1901–23 and sections 1951–52 of the ICWA under the Indian Commerce Clause. Ind. Pls.’ Br. 66, ECF No. 80; State Pls.’ Br. 49–52, ECF No. 74. Defendants counter that the Indian Commerce Case 4:17-cv-00868-O Document 166 Filed 10/04/18 Page 46 of 47 PageID 4175
47
Clause grants Congress plenary authority over Indian Affairs. Fed. Def’s Resp. Ind. 35, ECF No. 123; Trib. Defs.’ Resp. 21–28, ECF No. 118. But as shown above, Murphy does not permit Congress to directly command the States in this regard, even when it relies on Commerce Clause power. Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1479. Therefore Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that these sections are unconstitutional is GRANTED.

Final Judgment ICWA STRUCK DOWN
167_-_final_judgment ICWA STRUCK DOWN –

Brackeen v Zinke – ICWA UNCONSTITUTIONAL
166_-_order_on_msj

START WRITING YOUR AMICUS BRIEFS

(Video) The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections

 Comments Off on (Video) The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections
Apr 142017
 
child abuse

Three-yr-old Lauryn Whiteshield was murdered a little over a month after her arrival to her grandfather’s home in the spring of 2013.
This twenty minute video examines the effect of federal Indian policy on the lives, liberty, and property of U.S. citizens across America.
Although the last two U.S censuses show that 75% of tribal members do not live within Indian Country and many have never had any association with the reservation system, federal policies mandate tribal government jurisdiction over individuals of lineage in several areas.
1) Across America, children who have never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs – including multi-racial children with extremely minimal blood quantum – have been removed from homes they love and placed with strangers. Some children have been severely hurt in the process.
2) Women victimized by violence can be denied the option of county court, regardless whether they believe justice cannot be obtained in tribal court.
3) Further, the Department of Interior holds title to the property of millions of individual tribal members. Adult citizens are not allowed to sell or use their property as collateral without permission.
This study looks at the practical impact and documented repercussions of policies that, based solely on a person’s lineage, set limitations on what they may do with their lives, children, and property.

Please share this with your friends.

PLEASE also share with YOUR Congressmen. MANY of them take a stand on all kinds of things – from orphans in Russia to immigrants and refugees from overseas. DEMAND that they take a strong stand for children in the United States – CITIZENS subject to abuse by a law they – Congress – created and MUST remove.

Most especially – share your thoughts on this video with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs – Senator John Hoeven.

Find your State’s Senator and Congressmen here:
https://www.senate.gov/
https://www.house.gov/

Thank you – and PLEASE Share….

Learn More.

https://DyingInIndianCountry.com

https://www.facebook.com/CAICW.org/

Declared “Sanctuary” for Children Running from ICWA –

 Comments Off on Declared “Sanctuary” for Children Running from ICWA –
Feb 202017
 
sanctuary

Over the years, we have seen so many distraught families – panicked over what was happening to their children, unsure what to do to protect them, and unable to get help.

Many times, especially in light of the new ICWA rules and guidelines published by the Obama admin in 2016, …there has been little a family could do.

Watching several families struggle at this current time, we have come to a decision:

– Whereas, up to half of Americans believe sanctuaries from federal law are a good and reasonable necessity – where people, fleeing oppression from their home nation, can hide from federal law that would send them back to that home nation;

– And Whereas; most American citizens believe federal laws that target, isolate, and separate children and families on the basis of heritage are unconstitutional and should not be allowed;

– And Whereas, for decades in America, many Christian church buildings have served as sanctuaries, and while there is no law defining a sanctuary or mandating it be respected, the federal government has often declined to enter and forcibly remove people from a declared Christian Sanctuary;

– And Whereas, federal authorities have shown their willingness to ignore state and federal law for the last two years when they declined to enter the Cheyenne River Reservation to remove two little girls who were taken from North Dakota by their non-custodial mother when their non-tribal fathers were granted legal custody; and federal authorities have also shown their willingness to ignore federal law in several cases during the 1980’s when Guatemalan illegal-immigrants sought sanctuary in various church buildings around the country;

– And Whereas; many children of tribal heritage, even in teen years, have expressed their desire to stay with their chosen families and not be uprooted by tribal governments, but were ignored by tribal, state and/or federal officials;

– And Whereas; many birth parents have objected to tribal jurisdiction over, or involvement in, their families, and have made it clear they do NOT want their children on the reservation or their custody case heard in tribal court, but were ignored by tribal, state and/or federal officials;

– And Whereas; many extended family, of varied heritages, have had children removed from them by tribal officials for no other reason than that the tribal officials did not like that branch of the family, or the family was non-Indian, or there were friends or family of tribal officials that wanted the child;

– And Whereas; there are many documented instances of tribal courts practicing corruption and nepotism in their choice of homes for children, despite clear evidence of harm to children in those homes;

– And Whereas; an untenable number of children have been sexually abused, seriously injured or murdered as a result of placement in homes under the Indian Child Welfare Act;

– And Whereas; there is solid legal argument concerning the unconstitutionality of the ‘Indian Child Welfare Act,’ and Justice Clarence Thomas intimated as much in his concurrence in the case, “Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl;

– And Whereas; once a child has been placed in the custody of a tribal government, particularly within reservation boundaries, it can be extremely difficult to remove the child;

The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare does hereby from this day forward declare itself a ‘Sanctuary for Children and Families Threatened by the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Families will need to show:

1) It is in the child’s clear best interest to remain with them; or that while best interest might yet be unclear, the child needs more time for all aspects to be studied and for true best interest to be made clear; and
2) They are in imminent danger of being forcibly removed by tribal authorities and/or local police under the direction of tribal authorities.
3) They intend to tirelessly work a plan of action to prove and win the best interest of the particular child or children;
4) Understand the CAICW sanctuary they would stay in is a Christian home – where Jesus Christ is Lord.

Lastly, we fully respect President Trump’s position concerning federal funds – and can proudly guarantee we will not be requesting or requiring any federal funds for this Sanctuary.

Families can contact us by messenger or email.

PLEASE – share this message freely.

__________________________________________________

– – Those who object to this and see things from a progressive perspective can explain why they feel it is okay for sanctuaries to shield people of some heritages from some federal laws, but not people of other heritages from other federal laws.

– – Those who see things from a conservative perspective and object to any instance where a person is shielded from federal law… We can only beg your understanding that these children are American citizens, and the federal law in question does not provide equal protection. Please ask your Senators and Congressman to act quickly on repealing this law, so that no child of tribal heritage will need a sanctuary.

Lexi is not alone: New BIA rules ensure many children will be torn from their families

 Comments Off on Lexi is not alone: New BIA rules ensure many children will be torn from their families
Jun 112016
 

RE: Lexi, the little girl torn from her family in California after being labeled ‘Indian’ and subjected to a racist law; a law which as of June 8, 2016 – when the BIA published new, stricter rules – has become manifold worse for dissident and even non-Indian families.

Lexi is NOT alone. It is very important you know that. This is happening and has happened to many children across America. Two of our CAICW board members are former ICWA children and have told their story in the hope someone will listen.

This racist law is said to have been enacted to protect children – but we have a long list of testimony from families and former ICWA children stating the contrary.

We strongly believe the real reason for ICWA was never about protecting children – but about the fact that so many tribal members over the decades have taken their families and left the reservation system. According to the last two U.S. censuses – 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country. People have been leaving for decades – – many times voluntarily as the incidence of crime and corruption on many reservations has grown.

ICWA, as written, fixes the membership drain – bringing back children and grandchildren of families who had left. It would not have been written to include unenrolled children, or children who have never had connection to Indian Country, if it wasn’t about taking back the children of dissident families. That is why tribal leaders have been so against the “Existing Indian Family Doctrine.” It is all about dissident families who have been deliberately keeping a distance.

Claiming that children have been kidnapped by social services – (while there was some historical truth to this to a certain extent) – has been a talking point meant to pull at the heart strings of America. Far more children have left the reservation system with their parents and extended family than have ever been taken by social services.

And many in our federal govt are helping the tribal leaders do this. The Tribal Justice Dept at the DOJ has made it clear on many occasions that they are not there to help individuals, they are there to support tribal governments. The BIA and the ACF do the same.

It appears the federal government has decided that tribal members themselves are expendable to the larger wishes and demands of tribal leadership. Any child with even a small amount of tribal heritage is less important than children of other heritages. They are deliberately left out of laws that protect other children.

These children apparently exist to be bandied about at the will of strangers within tribal governments – who have been granted the right to claim ownership over any child they choose…

The child’s best interest or feelings in the matter are apparently of no concern to the federal government or tribal leaders, who rake more federal dollars per head.

The new rules published by the BIA on June 8 make it even worse.

Who is factually benefiting from the demand that any child ‘in need of care’ who the tribal government decides to claim should be handed over to them?

The AG for the Cherokee Nation stated in 2012 that they had over 100 attorneys targeting 1500 children across the US – many of whom had less than 25% blood quantum and had never been near the tribe.

Why are they doing this?

Follow the money. Numerous federal agencies dole out funds to tribal governments based on the U.S census counts, tribal enrollment, and what is known as “child counts.”

QUOTE from the Federal Register: May 9, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 90): (Note – this is just ONE example of funding…)

    “Title IV-B 1 funding is a per-capita formula based on Tribal population under 21. Tribal allotments are deducted from the State’s total IV-B 1 allotment for that fiscal year.

    “Title IV-B 2 funding is a 3% set-aside of the total Title IV-B 2 budget for State and Tribes. The formula is based on a ratio of the number of children (under age 21) in the Tribe to the total number of children in all Tribes with approved plans.

    “Why apply? Title IV-B funds are very flexible and may be used to meet the unique child welfare needs of your community. Tribes determine their own priorities in developing goals and strategies.”

…That said… right now – at least 60 tribal governments are considering changing their constitutions to do away with “blood quantum” and go with lineage – so they can grow their numbers as the Cherokee Nation has – claiming children with as little as 1% heritage.

Follow the money.

WHEN we as citizens take our federal government back from those who have been using it as their personal playground and cash machine – can we get some help in ensuring ALL citizens – and children – are able to receive equal protection under the law?

One thing that MUST be done – is to STOP giving tribal leaders money on a ‘per head’ basis. STOP using our children as chattel – and a lot of this problem will go away.

(NOTE: NONE of the treaties promise funds based on number of children. In FACT – Most of the treaties only promised funds for a certain number of years – most often twenty years – and on a depreciating scale, while also providing goods and services during that time to help the reservation develop an economy. There is NO wording that funds will go on as long as the “grass grows.”)

People need to start actually reading the treaties.

FACT: MY children and grandchildren were never a treaty promise to the tribal government.

Not Just Lexi: ICWA Hurting Untold Children Across U.S.

 Comments Off on Not Just Lexi: ICWA Hurting Untold Children Across U.S.
Mar 302016
 

Bismarck, ND – On March 21, a 6-year-old girl of 1/64 Choctaw ancestry was taken crying from her home by social services, placed in a car, and driven to another state.

Many realize current federal Indian policies are hurting people. What many don’t know is the extent. Dozens of children across the nation currently face the same situation Lexi faced – if not worse.

To date, Lexi’s removal caused the biggest public ICWA reaction ever as the presence of dozens from within her community initially delayed her from being taken, then personally witnessed her removal in tears. Hundreds of thousands saw the video clips and reacted for a child 98% non-native, removed from her home solely due to the Indian Child Welfare Act. The resulting petition garnered signatures from 100 countries around the world.

According to the last two U.S censuses, 75% of persons eligible for tribal membership do not live in “Indian Country.” Over the last few decades, many families of heritage have left the reservations due to the level of corruption and crime. As families left, tribal leaders – panicked by declining membership – pushed Congress for increased control over children of heritage.

This includes children who are multi-heritage, who’ve never been near Indian Country, and whose only connection is a dissident great-grandparent who purposefully left the system decades ago.

Worse, some tribal governments refuse to allow kids to live in foster homes off reservation – even if there are no safe homes currently available on the reservation.

As reported by Tom Sullivan, Regional Director for ‘Administration of Children and Families,’ this has resulted in
Tom Sullivan - Regional Administrator ACF children being placed where ever available – including homes of known child abusers and sex offenders. Mr. Sullivan reported this multiple times to his DC superiors, who told him to cease reporting it, and after he refused, recently began the process of firing him.

Despite documented deaths of children and mass exodus from Indian Country, federal government consistently looks the other way while tribal leaders claim to speak for everyone and demand additional funds and increased control over children.

NICWA, NARF, the Casey Foundation and Tribal leaders do NOT speak for everyone, nor do they know what is best for every individual child of heritage – no matter whether that child is 100% or 1%. Rhetoric otherwise is the epitome of racism.

Unfortunately, federal government has literally made the decision to protect tribal sovereignty at all cost – even the cost of our children. In fact, the BIA is preparing additional rules to strengthen ICWA. Roland and his newborn, 1990

America is already angry with government over corrupt bureaucracies, lack of protection for citizens, and inaction by Congress.

CAICW is asking Americans to contact their Congressmen to oppose the new BIA rules, rescind the Indian Child Welfare Act, and protect a brave public servant – whistleblower Tom Sullivan.

###

Elizabeth Morris is Chair of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and author of “Dying in Indian Country.” is both a ministry and advocacy group. CAICW has also been advocating since February 2004 for families at risk of harm from the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Our advocacy has been both judicial and educational, as well as a prayer resource for families and a shoulder to cry on.

Help Save 6-yr-old Lexi!

 2 Responses »
Mar 202016
 

URGENT PRAYER: A little 6-yr-old girl was torn from her home Monday, 3/21/16 – taken from the only home she has known and loved to be placed with strangers.

This is due to the Indian Child Welfare Act – which pushes the false and racist notion that children of even a small amount of heritage are somehow different from other children – and do not bond, love or thrive in homes outside of Indian Country.

Tribal governments – which receive more federal money per head – claim it is in the genes.

This racist notion is pushed by media and even our Congress – although no such gene has been shown to exist – and despite testimony of myriad children, adults, and families of heritage across the nation that they are content, happy and thriving in their homes outside of Indian Country.

Many families have left Indian Country because they DO NOT want to be chattel for tribal governments.
– The family of the author of this post is one of them.


Sign petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/keep-lexi-home
Read More Here:
https://www.facebook.com/saveourlexi/

.

Defender of Abused Children about to be fired by DC Superiors for refusing to shut up about rampant sexual abuse –

 Comments Off on Defender of Abused Children about to be fired by DC Superiors for refusing to shut up about rampant sexual abuse –
Mar 162016
 
Sunset on the Rez

Whistle-blower Thomas Sullivan, the one HHS/ACF official who has stood up against the rampant sexual abuse on many reservations, is about to be fired by his DC Superiors.

They have come up with several accusations against him, but if you have followed his work and the threats they have made against him over the last three years – you know that all he has ever done is defy their orders to shut up about the overwhelming abuse of children, and release his reports to the public when his DC superiors ignored them.

Tom Sullivan - Regional Administrator ACF

Tom Sullivan is a hero – working to protect our children fromleaders who simply use and abuse them for purposes of power and money.

The following is the latest letter – a 6 page list of accusations from his superiors…

On the last page, you see a handwritten note from his superior that says;

Employee refused to sign document before having an opportunity to review it.
Mishaela Duran 3-10-16

(Why shouldn’t a man be allowed to review a document before he signs it?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-1

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-2

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-3

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-4

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-5

Proposed Removal 752CD - Thomas Sullivan - 03102016-6

READ THE SUIT – Lawsuit Filed Against the BIA’s New ICWA Guidelines

 3 Responses »
May 282015
 

By Tony Mauro, The National Law Journal
May 27, 2015

“A husband-wife team from two Washington, D.C., law offices filed suit Wednesday challenging strict new government guidelines for adopting Native American children in the aftermath of a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

“Lori Alvino McGill, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and her husband Matthew McGill, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, filed the case on behalf of the National Council for Adoption and other groups and individuals, including birth parents who placed Indian children with non-Indian adoptive parents…”

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202727560257/New-Challenge-to-Native-American-Adoption-Rules#ixzz3bRgBBAWm

READ THE LAWSUIT IN PDF HERE –
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/45a843bd-720a-4588-9c1f-e68acd715a58

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Dec 3, 2014 remarks in Full

 1 Response »
May 182015
 

Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks During the White House Tribal Nations Conference
Washington, DC
United States
~
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Good morning. I want to thank you all for such a warm welcome. And I would like to thank President Obama for hosting this important White House conference.

It is a pleasure to be here today, and a privilege to join so many distinguished public servants, passionate activists, dedicated leaders, and good friends as we celebrate vital achievements, discuss critical challenges, and renew our shared commitment. All of the leaders in this room – and so many others across the country – are indispensable partners in our efforts to fulfill the promise of the U.S. government’s relationships with sovereign tribes. You are critical allies in our ongoing work to move this country closer to its most treasured ideals: of equality, opportunity, and justice under law. And you continue a proud tradition of tribal leaders who have stepped to the forefront of efforts to preserve cultural values, to enforce treaty obligations too often ignored, and to secure the rights and benefits to which all American Indians and Alaska Natives are entitled.

I know this responsibility has rarely been easy. But it is a solemn obligation that you and your ancestors have carried for generations – through injustice, violence, and deprivation; through broken promises, deferred action, and denial of rights. Over the years, you’ve seen avenues into prosperity foreclosed by bigotry. You’ve seen opportunities curtailed by deplorable discrimination. And you’ve held firm even at times – in past decades – when the federal government insisted that the men and women of tribal nations forsake their culture and their heritage, and be slowly, painfully, grudgingly assimilated, while their tribal governments were neglected—or even terminated.

Together, you and your predecessors faced down tremendous adversity to safeguard your lands, protect your cultures, and strengthen your ability to choose your own future. And, particularly in the last half-century, your commitment has finally been met by a U.S government that’s prepared to acknowledge the failures and injustices of the past – and to work with and empower you to chart a new course.

That is why, during the earliest days of the Obama Administration – in 2009 – I traveled to St. Paul, Minnesota, for a historic Tribal Nations Listening Session, to hear directly from tribal officials about the actions we could take together to build a relationship of coexistence and cooperation. I was joined at the time by roughly 100 Department of Justice officials representing more than 20 different components, as well as more than 400 tribal leaders and representatives from around the nation – some of whom are here in the audience today. We discussed the epidemic of violence that cut a vicious path through Indian Country, where violent crime rates reached two, four, and sometimes over ten times the national average. We spoke about the vital needs of women on tribal lands, who faced a shocking reality in which 1 out of every 3 American Indian or Alaska Native women would be raped in her lifetime. And we spoke about children who were brought up in poverty, in the midst of uncertainty and rampant abuse.

As I listened, during that visit, I heard the pain in the voices of the people I was meeting with – people whose parents and grandparents had made indelible contributions to this country, but who had been shut out of the process of self-determination, and denied access to opportunities for success. I felt, even then, a deep and powerful comprehension of the magnitude of discrimination that tribal communities have faced – discrimination that bore a distressing resemblance to the experience of millions of people of color throughout our history, including those brave pioneers I remember watching as a young child, on a black-and-white television in the basement of my family’s home in New York City, as they marched for equality and rallied for the opportunities that should have been their birthright.

I recognized, on a basic, human level, the desire for empowerment, and the need for mutual trust and understanding, that I encountered during my listening session in Indian Country. And I left St. Paul both inspired and invigorated by a firm commitment to the work we must do together.

After that conference, I announced not only an intention to work closely with you to move in a positive direction, but a desire to take concrete steps forward – and to implement a fundamentally new approach that emphasized collaboration between sovereign tribes and the federal government. I announced the creation of a Tribal Nations Leadership Council to advise me on matters critical to Indian Country – a council made up of men and women not selected by the federal government, but elected by their own peers. I stated my determination to work with Congress to pass important legislation like the Tribal Law and Order Act in order to provide tribal governments with more of the authority, resources, and information they need to appropriately hold to account those who commit crimes in Indian Country. I directed the department to increase the engagement of United States Attorney’s Offices with tribes in their districts and work to expand Indian Country prosecutions. And I called for the swift reauthorization of a revised and strengthened Violence Against Women Act, including provisions recommended by the Justice Department that would, for the first time in decades, protect and empower Indian women against abuse by non-Native men.

I am proud to say that, thanks to the hard work and dedication of many of the men and women in this room today, every single one of these goals has been met. And all of these commitments have been fulfilled.

In every instance, progress was made possible by our shared determination to overcome the effects of what my predecessor, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, once called the “tragic irony” of American Indian oppression, and to work together to forge an enduring, positive, collaborative relationship between the federal government and sovereign tribes. And I am pleased to note that, over the last six years – by committing to this new and necessary approach – together with President Obama and our colleagues throughout the Administration, we have expanded on our initial groundbreaking efforts and helped to launch a new era of empowerment and opportunity.

Through cooperation between tribal justice leaders and U.S. Attorney’s Offices – including new tribal Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, who prosecute Indian Country cases in federal and tribal courts alike – we have dramatically strengthened interactions between federal and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors, and transformed a dysfunctional process that too often allowed domestic violence cases in Indian Country to languish and disappear—the sad result of a system in which the federal government and tribal officials would too rarely communicate, let alone collaborate. Every U.S. Attorney’s Office with Indian Country jurisdiction is now required to engage with the tribes in its district to develop operational plans to improve public safety and prevent and reduce violence against women and girls. A review of FY 2013 cases filed against defendants in Indian Country showed a 34 percent increase from 2008 numbers—the year before the department’s Indian Country initiative began. And since the bipartisan passage of the landmark Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act in 2013, the Justice Department has announced three pilot projects to begin early implementation of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, which extends tribal prosecution authority over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence for the first time in more than 35 years. As a result, more than 20 non-Indians have been charged by tribal prosecutors – and more than 200 defendants have been charged under VAWA’s enhanced federal assault statutes. This total includes more than 40 cases involving charges of strangulation or suffocation, which are often precursor offenses to domestic homicide.

We’re building on this work through targeted programs like the American Indian/Alaska Native Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner-Sexual Assault Response Team Initiative – under the leadership of our Office for Victims of Crime – which is designed to strengthen the federal response to sexual violence in tribal communities. Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the Initiative’s Coordination Committee. I received their formal report and concrete recommendations on improving federal agency response to sexual violence in tribal nations.

And I pledged then – and reiterate today – that these recommendations will serve as a solid basis for robust action as we seek to gain the trust of assault survivors; to break the culture of shame that prevents far too many victims from coming forward; and to build upon the exemplary work that tribal authorities, law enforcement leaders and victim advocates across the country are doing every day to help us turn the tide against sexual violence.

We are also expanding our work with tribal governments to protect children in Indian Country through the Task Force on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Since it was established last year, the Task Force has already made important progress, led in part by the outstanding work of its distinguished Advisory Committee co-chairs, former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan and Grammy-winning artist – and member of the Iroquois Nation – Joanne Shenandoah. As the Task Force moves ahead, they will continue to coordinate closely with federal leaders to support and strengthen the work all of you are leading throughout tribal lands.

Beyond these efforts, we have taken a collaborative approach to break the gridlock on issues that have been a source of contention between tribal nations and federal Administrations for decades.

In 2010, the Obama Administration reached a historic settlement – totaling $3.4 billion – that resolved Cobell v. Salazar, a class-action lawsuit on trust accounting and mismanagement that had been pending for fifteen years. Since October of that year, the United States has settled the trust-mismanagement claims of 81 federally recognized tribes, putting an end to decades of bitter litigation and providing over $2.6 billion to tribes across the country. These settlements – which place no conditions on the use of funds – have spurred tribal investments in long-term economic development initiatives, infrastructure, and expansion of tribal government services. And as part of the agreements, we established procedures for improving communication and avenues for alternative dispute resolution – so that, in the future, we can more effectively collaborate to resolve issues involving trust funds and assetswithout costly and long-running litigation.

More broadly, we’ve worked to protect water rights and natural resources on tribal lands. And we’ve vastly expanded our outreach to – and cooperation with – Indian tribes across the continent, institutionalizing ways to seek input on environmental concerns and gaining critical insights into the environmental needs of tribal nations from coast to coast. Today, I can announce that we are releasing a revised Environmental Justice Strategy and Guidance, outlining how we will work to use existing environmental and civil-rights laws to help ensure that all communities, regardless of their income or demographics, are protected from environmental harm. Across the board – from our collaboration with and funding of the Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group, or ITWG, which uses peer-to-peer education to enhance effective prosecution practices in Indian Country, to our formal conversations with sovereign tribes to discuss ways to expand and enforce the voting rights of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including a proposal to require state and local election administrators whose territory includes tribal lands to place at least one polling site in a location chosen by the tribal government – this Administration is standing up for tribal sovereignty, tribal self-government, and tribal power. We are defending the rights of men and women in Indian Country to execute their own laws, to implement their own practices, and to perform their own civic services. And we will do everything in our power to ensure that, in the future, efforts like these will become standard practice.

To that end, last year, I announced that the Justice Department would take steps to draft and adopt a new Statement of Principles to guide all of the actions we take in working with federally recognized Indian tribes. Developed in consultation with the leaders of all 566 tribes, that Statement of Principles was meant to codify our intention to serve not as a patron, but as a partner, in Indian country – and to institutionalize our efforts to reinforce relationships, reform the criminal justice system, and aggressively protect civil rights and treaty rights. I am proud to say that our Statement of Principles is now complete. It has taken effect. And it will serve as a guide for this Administration – and every Administration – as we seek to build the more perfect Union, and the more just society, that every individual deserves.

All of these achievements are vital – and many of them are nothing short of groundbreaking. But, like all of you, I recognize that the longevity of our accomplishments depends not only on the strength of our convictions, but on the ability and the willingness of those who come after us to build upon the progress that we have set in motion.

After all, for everything that’s been achieved so far, a great deal of important, life-changing work remains to be done. That’s why the Department of Justice is committed to programs like the Gaye L. Tenoso Indian Country Fellowship—named for a beloved and extraordinary member of our DOJ family, and an enrolled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation of Indians, who worked tirelessly to advance the federal government’s relationships with sovereign tribes and to defend the interests of Indian and Alaska Native communities from coast to coast. Although Gaye passed away this summer, the fellowship that bears her name is creating a new pipeline of legal talent with expertise and deep experience in federal Indian law, tribal law, and Indian Country issues. I’m proud to say the very first Indian country fellow has been selected, and Charisse Arce [sha-REESE AR-see], of Bristol Bay, Alaska, will be appointed to a three-year term position in the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Arizona, where she will be assigned to the district’s Indian Country Crime Section. She will also serve a portion of her appointment in a tribal prosecutor’s office or with another tribal legal entity within the district.

In addition to establishing this vital fellowship, the Department of Justice is reinforcing and increasing staff for the Office of Tribal Justice—including experts with a deep understanding of the laws impacting Indian Country—to make certain that Indian men, women, and children will always have a voice in the policies and priorities of the Justice Department. And we are redoubling our support of the Indian Child Welfare Act, to protect Indian children from being illegally removed from their families; to prevent the further destruction of Native traditions through forced and unnecessary assimilation; and to preserve a vital link between Native children and their community that has too frequently been severed – sometimes by those acting in bad faith.

Today, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice is launching a new initiative to promote compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Under this important effort, we are working to actively identify state-court cases where the United States can file briefs opposing the unnecessary and illegal removal of Indian children from their families and their tribal communities. We are partnering with the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services to make sure that all the tools available to the federal government are used to promote compliance with this important law. And we will join with those departments, and with tribes and Indian child-welfare organizations across the country, to explore training for state judges and agencies; to promote tribes’ authority to make placement decisions affecting tribal children; to gather information about where the Indian Child Welfare Act is being systematically violated; and to take appropriate, targeted action to ensure that the next generation of great tribal leaders can grow up in homes that are not only safe and loving, but also suffused with the proud traditions of Indian cultures.

Ultimately, these children – and all those of future generations – represent the single greatest promise of our partnership, because they will reap the benefits of our ongoing work for change. In the last six years, we have worked together in a shared effort to end misunderstanding and mistreatment, and to bring about a triumph of vision over the status quo; of ingenuity over incapacity; and of progress over stagnation. We have laid an enduring foundation as we strive to empower vulnerable individuals, and give them the tools they need not to leave their communities, but to bolster them; not to abandon their ways of life, but to strengthen them.

Of course, there are many more challenges still before us. And we’ve seen all too clearly that the barriers erected over centuries of discrimination will not be surmounted overnight. But we face a brighter future today because we have placed our faith not in conflict or division, but in cooperation and respect; in the understanding that, though we live in different cultures, with different traditions, we share the same values. We believe that sovereign nations have the right to protect their citizens from harm, and that no perpetrator of domestic violence should be granted immunity because of the color of his skin. We understand that promises of autonomy have meaning, and should not be overturned through the changing desires of different federal Administrations. And we recognize that any child in Indian Country – in Oklahoma, or Montana, or New Mexico – is not fundamentally different from an African-American kid growing up in New York City. And neither child should be forced to choose between their cultural heritage and their well-being.

From the assurance of equal rights and equal justice, to the power of democratic participation and mutual aid, we are joined together by principles as old as time immemorial – principles embodied both by men and women whose ancestors lived on this continent centuries ago, and by those who have newly arrived on our shores. This is my pledge to you – here, today: that, because of our partnership – because of the record we’ve established; because of the foundation we’ve built – no matter who sits in the Oval Office, or who serves as Attorney General of the United States, America’s renewed and reinforced commitment to upholding these promises will be unwavering and unchangeable; powerful and permanent.

That is the legacy of our work together – not only the groundbreaking accomplishments I have described today, but the historic dedication to partnership that has made them possible. Although my time in this Administration will soon come to an end, we have embedded a commitment to tribal justice in the fabric of the Justice Department that I know will continue long after my departure. I will always be proud of the enduring, positive, and collaborative relationship we have built; of the life-changing work we have completed; and of the new era of progress that we have begun. It is my sincere hope that as the history of this Department of Justice is written, great attention will be paid to our accomplishments in interacting with our Native brothers and sisters. This has been a personal priority for me.

I want to thank you all, once again, for your passion, your perseverance, and your steadfast devotion to the work of our time. I am humbled to stand with you, today and every day. I am grateful for your friendship. And I look forward to all that we will achieve – together – in the months and years ahead.
Thank you.
Topic:
Tribal Justice
Component:
Office of the Attorney General

The United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice News –
http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-delivers-remarks-during-white-house-tribal-nations
Accessed Dec 4, 2014, 5 pm

Letter to Eric Holder, re: His ICWA Statement at WH Tribal Nations Conference, Dec 3, 2014

 5 Responses »
Dec 052014
 

U.S Attorney General Eric Holder Vowed to give Permanent Jurisdiction of Multi-racial Children Across the Nation to Tribal Governments on Wednesday, December 3, 2014.

In reference to the Indian Child Welfare Act, he stated,

…“We are partnering with the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services to make sure that all the tools available to the federal government are used to promote compliance with this important law.”
And “… because of the foundation we’ve built – no matter who sits in the Oval Office, or who serves as Attorney General of the United States, America’s renewed and reinforced commitment to upholding these promises will be unwavering and unchangeable; powerful and permanent.”

(READ his remarks in full here – https://caicw.org/2015/05/18/attorney-general-eric-holders-dec-3-2014-remarks-in-full/#)

He made this vow in remarks during the White House Tribal Nations Conference in Washington, DC. Below is a response from a Parent – the Chair of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare.

Attorney General Eric Holder;

Re: Your statement during the White House Tribal Nations Conference, Dec. 3, 2014, in regards to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

What is consistently left out of the ICWA discussion is the civil rights of United States citizens of every heritage – those enrolled in tribal communities and those who are not – who do not want tribal government interference in their families. Shortsighted placation of tribal leaders ignores these facts:

1. 75% of tribal members do NOT live in Indian Country
2. Most families falling under tribal jurisdiction are multi-racial, and
3. Many families have purposefully chosen to raise their children with values other than those currently popular in Indian Country.

Federal government does not have the right to assign our children to political entities.

Further, federal government does not have the right to choose which religion, customs or traditions a child should be raised in. This holds true for children who are 100% a certain heritage, let alone children who are multi-heritage. It holds true because we are a nation that respects the rights and freedoms of every individual citizen – no matter their heritage.

Please recognize that while we agree with you that “any child in Indian Country – in Oklahoma, or Montana, or New Mexico – is not fundamentally different from an African-American kid growing up in New York City” – neither is any child fundamentally different from a Hispanic Catholic, German Jewish, or Irish Protestant child growing up in any U.S. city or rural town. In fact, most enrollable children in America have Caucasian relatives – and many live with their Caucasian relatives. My own enrolled children are no different from their fully Caucasian cousins or their cousins with Filipino heritage. Children are children – with fundamentally the same emotional and physical needs. We agree 100% with you.

We also agree no child “should be forced to choose between their cultural heritage and their well-being.” Tragically, that is the very thing federal and tribal governments are doing to many of these children.

Enrollable children – and at times even children who are not enrollable but are targeted by a tribal government anyway – are currently forced to accept what is purported to be their cultural heritage – at the expense of their safety and well-being. This has even been done under the watchful eye of the Justice Department, as in the case of 3-year-old Lauryn Whiteshield, murdered in 2013.

Concerning your directive regarding cultural heritage, the federal government does not have the right to mandate that my children and grandchildren – or any of the children whose families we represent – be raised in a home “suffused with the proud traditions of Indian cultures.” As parents, my husband and I had a right to decide that our children’s Irish Catholic, German Jewish, and “American” Evangelical heritage is all equally important. It is the parent’s choice, not the government’s, as to how our children are raised (Meyer vs. Nebraska, 1923; Pierce vs. Society of Sisters. 1925)

My name is Elizabeth Sharon Morris. I am the widow of Roland John Morris, a U.S. citizen of 100% Minnesota Chippewa heritage who was born and raised on the Leech Lake Reservation, speaking only Ojibwe until he started kindergarten. I am the birth mother, grandmother, foster and adoptive mother to several enrolled or eligible members, and an aunt and sister-in-law to dozens. Our home was an accepted ICWA home for 17 years and we raised over a dozen enrolled children in it.

I am also the Chairwoman of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, a national non-profit founded by my husband and myself in 2004. CAICW represents children and families across the nation who’ve been hurt by federal Indian policy – most notably ICWA – and who, as U.S. citizens, do not want tribal government control or interference in their families.

The facts are:

1) According to the last two U.S. censuses, 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country. Many, like our family, have deliberately taken their children and left in order to protect their families from the rampant crime and corruption of the reservation system. These families do NOT want their children turned over to tribal authorities under any circumstances – and having made a decision to disassociate, should not have to live in fear of their children being placed on the reservation if the parents should die.
2) The abuses at Spirit Lake in North Dakota are well known, but it is also known that Spirit Lake is just a microcosm of what’s happening on many reservations across the country.
3) Gang activity involving drugs is heavy and rampant on many reservations. My husband’s grandson was shot and left for dead at Spirit Lake in July, 2013. To date, your Justice Department, which you’ve highly praised for its work in Indian Country, has not charged anyone for the shooting despite family knowledge of who was involved in the altercation. Many children have been dying within Indian Country whose names don’t make it to the media – and for whom justice is never given.
4) These abuses are rampant on many reservations because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows extensive abuse to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
5) Many, many times more children leave the reservation system in company of their parents, who have been mass exiting – than do children who have been taken into foster care or found a home in adoption. But tribal leaders won’t admit many parents consciously take their kids out of Indian Country in attempt to get them away from the reservation system and corrupt leaders. It makes a better sound bite to blame evil social services
6) There are many documented cases of children who have been happy in homes outside of Indian Country and who have fought being moved to the reservation, and who have been severely traumatized after being forced to do so. Many in federal government are aware of these children but, as done with the reports of ACF Regional Director Tom Sullivan, have chosen to ignore them.

It is claimed the cause of crime and corruption in Indian Country is poverty and “Historical Trauma,” and that additional funding will solve the problems. Yet, crime and corruption are never made better and can never be made better by giving those responsible for the crime and corruption more money.

It’s time to stop listening to those with vested financial interest in increasing tribal government power, and admit the physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse of tribal members by other tribal members and even many tribal leaders.

Every time power to tribal leaders is increased, tribal members – U.S. citizens – are robbed of civil freedoms under the constitution of the United States. Equal Protection is a constitutional right.

To better protect children, we need to:

A. Guarantee protection for children of Native American heritage equal to that of any other child in the United States.
B. Guarantee that fit parents, no matter their heritage, have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage.
C. Recognize the “Existing Indian Family Doctrine” as a viable analysis for consideration and application in child custody proceedings. (See In re Santos Y, In Bridget R., and In re Alexandria Y.)
D. Guarantee that United States citizens, no matter their heritage, have a right to fair trials.

    • When summoned to a tribal court, parents and legal guardians need to be informed of their legal rights, including USC 25 Chapter 21 1911 (b)“…In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent…”
    • Further, parents involved in any child custody proceeding should have a right to object to tribal jurisdiction. Many tribal members don’t take things to tribal court because they don’t expect to get justice there. For the Justice Department to deny this reveals the Justice Departments willingness to ignore how many tribal courts factually work.
    • Under the principles of comity: All Tribes and States shall accord full faith and credit to a child custody order issued by the Tribe or State of initial jurisdiction consistent within the UCCJA – which enforces a child custody determination by a court of another State – unless the order has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2 of the UCCJA.

E. Include well-defined protections for Adoptive Parents equal to protections afforded families of every heritage.
F. Mandate that a “Qualified expert witness” be someone who has professional knowledge of the child and family and is able to advocate for the well-being of the child, first and foremost – not tribal government.
G. Because it is claimed that tribal membership is a political rather than racial designation, parents, as U.S. citizens, should have the sole, constitutional right to choose political affiliation for their families and not have it forced upon them. Only parents and/or legal custodians should have the right to enroll a child into an Indian Tribe.

    • Remove the words “or are eligible for membership in” 1901 (3)
    • Remove the words “eligible for membership in” from 1903 (4) (b), the definition of an ‘Indian child’ and replace with the words “an enrolled member of”

Thank you for your willingness to hear our concerns and take action to protect our children and grandchildren from further exploitation.

Elizabeth Sharon Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW)

Cc: Tracy Toulou, Director, Tribal Justice
Members of Congress

Sage’s Story: Running from ICWA

 1 Response »
Aug 132014
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEogtESN5Wo

Sage was 4-years-old and one of the first children to be hurt by the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978. She was 6-years when she and the family she loved went on the run to protect her from the law that intended to force to live with an abusive birth parent. She was 13 when she was finally forcibly taken from her family to be placed on the reservation with the birth mother who had almost killed her.

She tells her story of going on the run with her chosen parents, her trauma of being taken from them, and ultimate relief when she was finally released from the reservation and allowed to return home. To this day, thirty-some years later, she is upset by what the government and ICWA put her through.

– http://youtu.be/TEogtESN5Wo

Tom Sullivan: Continual Rape of 13-yr-old Ignored

 2 Responses »
Jun 102014
 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF) Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Subject: Criminal Corruption Reaches New Heights at Spirit Lake
To: “Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)”
Cc: “Greenberg, Mark (ACF)” , “Murray, James (ACF)”

Ms. McMullen:

One month ago I wrote a four page email documenting the level of control exercised by the criminally corrupt at Spirit Lake.

This was not the first time I had raised their control over events at Spirit Lake. Almost two years ago, in my First Mandated Report, dated June 14, 2012, I quoted favorably from a letter composed by former Tribal Judge Molly McDonald who had written, “I grew up on this reservation and witnessed many acts of violence and abuse. This is normal to us. Our tribe has adopted this as a way of life, violence and hopelessness. When does the cycle end?…The abuse is reported but nothing is done by Social Services or Law Enforcement. Where do we go from there?…. Please consider that if an investigation had been done, many children could have been saved from further abuse, and possibly, they would have been alive today…..our tribe is attempting to cover up these issues that plagued our reservation for many years……Whatever picture our tribal council or chairman want to paint, it simply is not the case. There is a dire need for professionals …that know their boundaries and will not overlook issues at the request of Tribal Council.”

When former Tribal Judge McDonald wrote that letter in the Spring of 2012, the criminally corrupt controlled the levers of power at Spirit Lake. They still do. Now, however, after going unchallenged by anyone in authority for so many years, they may have gone too far for most responsible people.

In item # 2 in my December 19, 2013 email to you I referenced the allegation that a 13 year old little girl was being raped by a known sex offender, that this had been reported to the Tribal Chair and Council, BIA and Tribal law enforcement. The child’s non-custodial father was told by the BIA that they would not be able to investigate this allegation for another thirty days at the earliest. I have periodically referenced this child’s situation in my subsequent emails to you. To my knowledge, more than 6 months after this allegation was first reported to the BIA, no investigation has yet been conducted. This is how innocent victims are treated at Spirit Lake! Would such a failure to investigate these allegations, to stop the abuse and to protect the innocent victim be tolerated in Devils Lake, ND, the nearest off reservation majority community?

Clearly the criminally corrupt do not control Devils Lake. Even though the alleged rapist, referenced above, resides on the Spirit Lake reservation, the State’s Attorney for Ramsey County (Devils Lake is the county seat for Ramsey County) has obtained four felony indictments against this man for child abuse, endangerment for actions he engaged in off the reservation in Ramsey County. My sources and I suspect these indictments are for child sexual abuse but have not thus far been able to obtain confirmation of our suspicions. Nevertheless, these are felony level charges involving the abuse of a child. I believe most thinking adults, knowing this, would consider those to be serious charges. This is not an opinion held by the Spirit Lake leadership because they are refusing to allow this alleged rapist of a 13 year old little girl, the subject of four felony indictments involving child abuse, to be extradited to Ramsey County.

Apparently this is how it works at Spirit Lake: the allegations of little girls who report they are being raped are ignored while their alleged rapists the subject of four felony indictments for child abuse is shielded from the law. If this isn’t a new extreme in criminal corruption what is?

Thomas F. Sullivan
Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

Mark Fiddler Explains Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl

 Comments Off on Mark Fiddler Explains Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl
Jun 032014
 
https://caicw.org

Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance

By: Mark D. Fiddler (fn 1)~
Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum | Vol. 22 No. 2 | Spring 2014
http://www.mnbar.org/msba-home/msba-news/2014/05/13/family-law-forum-vol.-22-no.-2-spring-2014#.WMkEURsrKyI

One of the thorniest questions facing attorneys who practice adoption law is determining whether and how the Indian Child Welfare Act applies to voluntary adoption proceedings, especially cases where the birth mother, whether Indian or not, wishes to consent to adoption and the father does not otherwise have standing or any rights under state law. A raft of questions arise. Does ICWA apply? Does the unwed father have standing? Does the tribe have the right to notice? Does the father have the right to demand a termination trial and remedial efforts before an adoption may proceed? Does a fit birth mother have the right to place her child with non-Indians? Most of these issues were addressed in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013), a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 25, 2013, which dramatically reshapes adoption practice, and casts new doubt on the constitutionality of states’ laws which attempt to expand ICWA beyond its original reach.

The Facts (fn 2)~

While Birth Mother was pregnant with Biological Father’s child, their relationship ended and Biological Father (a member of the Cherokee Nation) agreed to relinquish his parental rights. Birth Mother put Baby Girl up for adoption through a private adoption agency and selected Adoptive Couple, non-Indians living in South Carolina. For the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl. About four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. In the adoption proceedings, Biological Father sought custody and stated that he did not consent to the adoption.

Following a trial, which took place when Baby Girl was two years old, the South Carolina Family Court denied Adoptive Couple’s adoption petition and awarded custody to Biological Father. At the age of 27 months, Baby Girl was handed over to Biological Father, whom she had never met. The State Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the ICWA applied because the child custody proceeding related to an Indian child; that Biological Father was a “parent” under the ICWA; that §§ 1912(d) and (f) barred the termination of his parental rights; and that had his rights been terminated, § 1915(a)’s adoption-placement preferences would have applied. In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding:

(1) the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section conditioning involuntary termination of parental rights for Indian child on a showing regarding merits of continued custody of child by parent does not apply where Indian parent never had custody;
(2) ICWA section providing that party seeking to terminate parental rights to Indian child under state law shall satisfy court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent breakup of Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful does not apply where Indian parent abandoned Indian child prior to birth and child had never been in Indian parent’s legal or physical custody; and
(3) ICWA section providing placement preferences for adoption of Indian children does not bar a non-Indian family from adopting an Indian child when no other eligible candidates have sought to adopt the child.

Unpacking Adoptive Couple: when does a “parent” have standing under ICWA?

In adoption proceedings, where paternity timelines in most states are so short to promote early permanence for children, is a “late” custody claimant a “parent” with the full panoply of ICWA rights? Adoptive Couple had argued in the South Carolina Supreme Court that the birth father was not a “parent” with any rights under ICWA. The definition of parent matters, for nearly all of ICWA’s protections hinge on who is and is not a “parent” with standing to assert ICWA rights. Critical in Adoptive Couple was the issue of whether ICWA’s termination of parental rights provision, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f), with its stringent requirements of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, “qualified expert witness” testimony, and proof of “serious emotional or physical harm”, applies to a putative father who has not timely established paternity under state law.

Under ICWA, “ ’parent’ means any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom. It does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9). Adoptive Couple argued that by using the terms “acknowledged or established,” Congress intended to defer to state law on paternity establishment since there was no body of federal law on paternity, citing the unanimous view of state courts that such matters are the subject of state law. One state supreme court concluded that Congress intended to exclude from ICWA “unwed fathers who have not taken affirmative steps to ensure that their relationship with their child would be recognized.” In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child of Indian Heritage, 543 A.2d 925, 935 (N.J. 1988).

The definition of “parent” in Adoptive Couple was pivotal, because under South Carolina law, the birth father had not taken the required “affirmative steps” to acquire rights to consent (or to withhold consent and block the adoption). This is because birth father had failed to provide support, which under South Carolina law was defined as a “fair and reasonable sum, based on the father’s financial ability, for the support of the child or for expenses incurred in connection with the mother’s pregnancy or with the birth of the child, including, but not limited to, medical, hospital, and nursing expenses.” S.C. Code § 63-9-310(A)(5)(b). South Carolina’s law may at first blush seem strict, but it is not at all uncommon. Indeed, under Minnesota law, a putative father has no right to notice or consent for failure to provide “substantial support” to the child. Minn. Stat. § 259.49, subd. 1(2). (fn 3) In short, Adoptive Couple argued that if a birth father has no rights under state law, what specifically is it in ICWA that accords him greater federal rights? The South Carolina Supreme Court brushed this argument aside, holding the birth father had “established” paternity through a DNA test — without examining what it means to “establish or acknowledge” paternity.

The United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the issue of whether the birth father had standing as a “parent”, holding, [w]e need not — and therefore do not — decide whether Biological Father is a “parent.” fn 4. Rather, assuming for the sake of argument that he is a “parent,” we hold that neither § 1912(f) nor § 1912(d) bars the termination of his parental rights.” Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2560 (emphasis added). In footnote 4, the Court explained, “if Biological Father is not a “parent” under the ICWA, then § 1912(f) and § 1912(d) — which relate to proceedings involving possible termination of “parental” rights — are inapplicable. Because we conclude that these provisions are inapplicable for other reasons, however, we need not decide whether Biological Father is a “parent.”” Id. at fn. 4. (These “other reasons” are discussed below).

The Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple to pass on determining what makes a father a “parent” under § 1903(9) disappointed many adoption attorneys, as it leaves some critical issues in ICWA practice unresolved — chief among them is whether the birth father has the right to notice in ICWA proceedings. A “parent” is entitled to notice of “involuntary” foster care or termination proceedings under ICWA. 25 U.S.C. § 1912. Does a noncustodial father — who, under Adoptive Couple has no right to a termination trial under 1912(f) — still have the right to notice? Under the Minnesota Fathers Adoption Registry, a putative father must register within 30 days of birth in order to have the right to notice. Minn. Stat. § 259.52. What if the Indian father files late? Does a non-custodial putative “parent” under ICWA have to provide his consent to adoption in court under 25 U.S.C. § 1913? Future litigation may tell.

Adoptive Couple: existing Indian family doctrine left unresolved

Also unresolved in Adoptive Couple is the viability of the “existing Indian family doctrine.” In the South Carolina Supreme Court, Adoptive Couple waived invoking the existing Indian family doctrine, a judicial construction of ICWA which conditions ICWA’s application on the sufficiency of a custodial Indian parent’s ties to his or her tribal heritage. See, e.g., Hampton v. J.A.L., 658 So. 2d 331, 336-37 (La. Ct. App. 1995); In re Adoption of Crews, 825 P.2d 305, 310 (Wash. 1992). Courts that have rejected the existing Indian family doctrine have criticized the propriety of examining whether a preexisting Indian family is “Indian” enough to merit protection under ICWA. In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543, 551 (Kan. 2009); In re D.A.C., 933 P.2d 993, 999 (Utah Ct. App. 1997); see also Minn. Stat. § 260.771, subd. 2 (rejecting EIF by statute). Rather than invoking this doctrine, Adoptive Couple simply argued there was no preexisting family, period — consisting of Father and Baby Girl. Thus whether an Indian child would be raised in an “Indian-enough” environment was not relevant. Adoptive Couple did not question the birth father’s cultural ties. Despite not even briefing the Court or arguing the existing Indian family doctrine, the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected it. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 731 S.E.2d 550, 558 fn 17 (S.C. 2012) reversed on other grounds, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013).

While the United States Supreme Court failed to rule on the validity of the EIF, which it did not even discuss, the Court did clearly hold that ICWA applied: “Baby Girl is an “Indian child” as defined by the ICWA because she is an unmarried minor who “is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe,” § 1903(4)(b). … It is also undisputed that the present case concerns a “child custody proceeding,” which the ICWA defines to include proceedings that involve “termination of parental rights” and “adoptive placement,” § 1903(1).” Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 2557, fn 1 (2013).

Adoptive Couple: when are § 1912(d) active efforts required?

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that Adoptive Couple had failed to provide “active efforts” to the father by “attempting to stimulate Father’s desire to be a parent or to provide necessary education regarding the role of a parent.” Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 398 S.C. at 640, 731 S.E.2d at 563. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) provides in part that any party who seeks “a foster care placement” or the “termination of parental rights” to an Indian child must prove that “active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” Adoptive Couple had argued that since birth father had never had legal or physical custody of the child, he had never parented the child, and there was simply no Indian family to “break up.” They also argued that § 1912(d) by its own terms does not apply in adoptive placement proceedings.

The United States Supreme Court agreed, holding that that the “active efforts” requirement in § 1912(d) applies only in cases where an Indian family’s “breakup” would be precipitated by the termination of the parent’s rights under 1912(f). As Justice Samuel Alito, explained, Justice Alito: “Section 1912(d) is a sensible requirement when applied to state social workers who might otherwise be too quick to remove Indian children from their Indian families. It would, however, be unusual to apply § 1912(d) in the context of an Indian parent who abandoned a child prior to birth and who never had custody of the child.” He added, “[o]ur interpretation of § 1912(d) is also confirmed by the provision’s placement next to § 1912(e) and § 1912(f), both of which condition the outcome of proceedings on the merits of an Indian child’s “continued custody” with his parent. That these three provisions appear adjacent to each other strongly suggests that the phrase “breakup of the Indian family” [within 1912(d)] should be read in harmony with the “continued custody” requirement.” Id. at 2563.

Adoptive Couple: when is a § 1912(f) termination trial required?

Adoptive Couple had also argued that where the father had no established rights under state law, there was no parent-child relationship to be terminated under 25 U.S.C. §1912(f). While birth father had a biological parent-child relationship, that relationship is incapable of severance — and that is not the kind of parent-child relationship ICWA was designed to protect. Rather, Adoptive Couple argued § 1912(f) protects a pre-existing custodial relationship — whether legal or physical — between a parent and child.

The ICWA provides at 25 U.S.C. §1912(f) that no “termination of parental rights may be ordered” unless supported by “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” The rationale of 1912 (f) is that serious emotional, physical damage to the child will occur if the child is separated unnecessarily from the custodial parent. That § 1912(f) does not create rights out of whole cloth, but instead protects existing custodial rights, is not new or novel under Minnesota case law. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held nearly 20 years ago that § 1912 (f) does not apply to terminate the rights of an Indian father who fails to establish paternity under state law:
“[father’s] paternity action is not an action that can result in the termination of the parent-child relationship. If [father’s] action is unsuccessful, the parent-child relationship between [father] and [child] will not be terminated, it will simply never be established.” J.A.V. v. Velasco, 536 N.W.2d 896 (Minn. App. 1995)(emphasis added), aff’d, Matter of Paternity of J.A.V., 547 N.W 2d 374 (Minn. 1996).

The Supreme Court agreed. Justice Alito wrote, “[u]nder our reading of § 1912(f), Biological Father should not have been able to invoke § 1912(f) in this case, because he had never had legal or physical custody of Baby Girl as of the time of the adoption proceedings. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Biological Father never had physical custody of Baby Girl. And as a matter of both South Carolina and Oklahoma law, Biological Father never had legal custody either.” Id. As a result, § 1912(f) does not apply in cases where the Indian parent never had custody of the Indian child.” Id. at 2562.

Thus while the Court did not directly address the validity of the existing Indian family doctrine, as discussed above, it did adopt a version of it, albeit “EIF lite” (fn 4), by applying ICWA’s most stringent procedural protections to a father, based not upon the child’s genetic connection to him or the tribe alone, but based upon the father’s actual physical or legal custody of the child.

In this sense, what Adoptive Couple did not get through its first argument — denial of “parent” standing to a father who had stepped forward to establish or acknowledge paternity under state law— it got in its second argument: that regardless of whether the father timely stepped forward and was a “parent”, if the father had never established physical or legal custody, nothing in ICWA would allow him to block an otherwise lawful adoption under state law. This means that a noncustodial putative father is not entitled to a termination trial under ICWA. Thus an adoption proceeding based upon the birth mother’s consent may now be considered a purely voluntary proceeding for which tribal notice is not required under ICWA. See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a). But see Minn. Stat. § 260.671, subd. 6 (requiring tribal notice in voluntary adoption proceedings). Other provisions of ICWA will apply, however, such as the in-court consent requirements found in 25 U.S.C. § 1913.

Adoptive Couple: but what about those placement preferences?

Adoptive Couple had argued in the South Carolina Supreme Court that once the birth father’s rights were at their end under state law for his failure to provide support, the child was free for adoption. They argued that ICWA’s placement preferences allowed for adoption of an Indian child by non-Indians with the birth mother’s consent. 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides: “[i]n any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.” Adoptive Couple relied on numerous decisions in other states, which hold that a birth parent’s preference is sufficient to establish good cause. See, e.g., In re N.N.E., 752 N.W.2d 1, 7-8 (Iowa 2008) (citing cases). The South Carolina Supreme Court ignored the argument that mother’s preferences may constitute good cause, and instead held that “bonding, standing alone, should [not] form the basis for deviation from the statutory placement preferences.” Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 731 S.E.2d at 657.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court on this score as well, holding “§ 1915(a)’s preferences are inapplicable in cases where no alternative party has formally sought to adopt the child. This is because there simply is no “preference” to apply if no alternative party that is eligible to be preferred under § 1915(a) has come forward.” Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2564. The Court noted that neither the birth father, nor any other family members, nor any other Cherokee families had sought to adopt Baby Girl. Id. On remand to the South Carolina Supreme Court, birth father argued he had the right to petition to adopt. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected this petition and ordered the family court to finalize the adoption by Adoption Couple, holding “[o]ur original and erroneous decision was premised on the applicability of ICWA to the Birth Father. As a result, the Birth Father’s rights, if any, are determined by the law of the state of South Carolina. While this Court was in error concerning the applicability of ICWA, we have consistently held that under state law, the Birth Father’s parental rights (because of his irrefutable lack of support, interest and involvement in the life of Baby Girl) would be terminated. Therefore, under state law, the Birth Father is precluded from challenging the adoption.” Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 404 S.C. 490, 492, 746 S.E.2d 346, 347 (S.C. 2013).

While birth father then sought to bar enforcement of the South Carolina adoption judgment ordered on remand, this legal gambit ultimately failed when the Oklahoma Supreme Court dissolved its stay of enforcement, thus freeing Baby Girl to be returned to Adoptive Couple on September 24, 2014 — this, roughly four years after the child’s birth. See Brown v. DeLapp, 312 P.3d 918 (Okla. 2013).

While the Court’s holding that the preferences are inapplicable might appear a dramatic setback to tribes, the Court’s holding is far more limited — for the fact remains that in voluntary adoption proceedings based upon the consent of a fit parent, under no circumstances may an adoption be granted without the consent of the parent. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 259.24, subd.1(a) Therefore, there cannot be a competing adoption petition filed for the simple reason that the birth parent’s consent to specific adoptive petitioners precludes other persons from invoking the preferences. The Court’s holding finally clarifies that a birth parent’s selection of specific adoptive petitioners, whether Indian or not, may no longer be denied by courts under § 1915 as that section is inapplicable.

Some critics of Adoptive Couple note the decision did not address the provision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ ICWA Guidelines that requires a diligent national search of potential adoptive families within the preference placement order, or how that requirement would apply in any other case. Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584, 67,594, F.3 (a)(iii) (November 26, 1979). Yet the specter of requiring a fit birth parent, or an adoption agency acting on her behalf, to conduct a national search for an Indian adoptive family, when the mother has already selected a couple to her liking, raises troubling due process concerns and ignores the holding of the case. It has long been established that parenthood and child-rearing fall within the most basic and fundamental liberties protected by substantive due process. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000). The Court endorsed this argument, holding “[a]s the State Supreme Court read §§ 1912(d) and (f), a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother — perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption — and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests… Such an interpretation would raise equal protection concerns.” Adoptive Couple, 133 S. Ct. at 2565 (emphasis added). In the voluntary adoption context, this paternalistic search requirement cannot be applied without trampling on Indian birth parents’ freedom to choose who will raise their children.

Adoptive Couple: straight statutory construction or constitutional avoidance?

Attorneys, judges, and legislators seeking to apply Adoptive Couple — and to know what it permits — first have to know how the Supreme Court got to its result. Thankfully, the Court left a clear trail. Delivering the opinion for the 5-4 majority, Justice Alito wrote,
“[t]he Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted to help preserve the cultural identity and heritage of Indian tribes, but under the State Supreme Court’s reading, the Act would put certain vulnerable children at a great disadvantage solely because an ancestor — even a remote one — was an Indian. As the State Supreme Court read §§ 1912(d) and (f), a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother — perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption — and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests. If this were possible, many prospective adoptive parents would surely pause before adopting any child who might possibly qualify as an Indian under the ICWA. Such an interpretation would raise equal protection concerns, but the plain text of §§ 1912(f) and (d) makes clear that neither provision applies in the present context.” Adoptive Couple 133 S. Ct. at 2565 (emphasis added).

This last sentence should give tribal attorneys pause. As a straight matter of statutory construction, the majority arguably could have construed the phrase “continued custody” in 1912(f) to apply to bar the termination of birth father’s parental rights, despite the fact he only had a biological relationship with the child. Indeed, Justice Scalia, dissenting, wrote that “continued” could mean “merely that initial or temporary custody is not “likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child,” but that continued custody is not likely to do so.” Adoptive Couple at 2570-71. But the majority’s finding that such a broader construction would “raise equal protection concerns” could not be a more clear invocation of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance — that the majority saw the equal protection and due process clauses as requiring the Court to hew closely to the plain language of the text. As the United States Supreme Court has held,“[I]t is a cardinal principle” of statutory interpretation … that when an Act of Congress raises “a serious doubt” as to its constitutionality, “this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 Sc.D. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932); See Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (3) (presuming the legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this state).

What are these “equal protection concerns”? The Court did not elaborate in detail, but the parties’ briefs provide helpful context as a guide. In Adoptive Couple, the birth father, Cherokee Nation, Solicitor, and countless amici, argued there were no such concerns. They argued the application of 1912(d) and (f) to the proceedings to block a valid state adoption, based upon the child’s blood connection alone, did not constitute racial discrimination or run afoul of the equal protection clause because the tribe’s designation of who is a member is a political, not racial, distinction. Under Cherokee law, a child is eligible for membership in the tribe if descended from an Indian on the tribe’s enrollment rolls created by the Dawes Commission in 1906. See CONST. OF THE CHEROKEE NATION, art. IV, § 1. In support, they cited Morton v. Mancari, a 1974 United States Supreme Court decision, which upheld a law granting a hiring preference for Native Americans by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See 417 U.S. 535 (1974). In that decision, the Court stated that “the preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities . . . .” Id. at 554. This Court has upheld preferential treatment for Indians where the differentiation is a consequence of Indians’ unique sovereign status. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 (1974).

Adoptive Couple argued when the preferences under Sections 1912(d) and 1912(f) are construed to protect preexisting connections between an Indian child and her custodial parent, there is at least the possibility that the child could be exposed to Indian culture through her Indian parent. ICWA’s preferences in those circumstances at least plausibly prevent the unwarranted removal of Indian children from their families and safeguard tribal cultural and social cohesion. 25 U.S.C. § 1901.

However, Adoptive Couple argued that such differential treatment predicated solely on “ancestral” classification violates equal protection principles, citing Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 at 514, 517 (2000). Adoptive Couple argued that ICWA’s legitimacy evaporates if unwed fathers with no preexisting substantive parental rights receive a statutory preference based solely on the Indian child’s race. In that circumstance, “[i]f tribal determinations are indeed conclusive for purposes of applying ICWA, and if . . . a particular tribe recognizes as members all persons who are biologically descended from historic tribal members, then children who are related by blood to such a tribe may be claimed by the tribe, and thus made subject to the provisions of ICWA, solely on the basis of their biological heritage.” In re Bridget R., 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507, 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). When unequal treatment is predicated on a status unrelated to social, cultural, or political ties, but rather blood lineage, the ancestry underpinning membership is “a proxy for race.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 514.

The Adoptive Couple majority did not hold that Morton constituted a “blanket shield” to any preferential treatment of Indians. Indeed, it never even mentioned the decision. For had the Court found that Morton shielded sections 1912(d) and (f) from equal protection scrutiny — because they were supposedly applied based upon the child’s “political” as opposed to racial status — it would not have found that their application raised any “equal protection concerns.” Conversely, the Court did not suggest in its analysis that Sections 1912(d) and (f) would have raised equal protection concerns when applied to a custodial parent of an Indian child. (fn 6) For in that instance the child’s connection to the tribe would have proved to be more than racial — it would have meant she was enmeshed in a real Indian family with a custodial parent. Thus at a minimum, Adoptive Couple stands as a clear signal from the Court that the application of ICWA, and perhaps other Indian preference statutes, cannot be based merely upon a person’s lineal or blood connection with a tribe. Something more is required. In Adoptive Couple, it was the requirement of parental custody. What that “more” will be in other contexts will no doubt be the subject of further litigation.

Adoptive Couple: impact on state ICWA laws

Many states have adopted laws that purport to expand upon or provide higher protections to Indian parents or custodians than exist under ICWA itself. Indeed, ICWA permits them to do so. Under 25 U.S.C. § 1921, [i]n any case where State or Federal law applicable to a child custody proceeding under State or Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child than the rights provided under this subchapter, the State or Federal court shall apply the State or Federal standard.” (emphasis added). Interestingly, in § 1921 the higher standards to be applied must be applied to the parents or custodians of an Indian child — not to the child.

Minnesota adopted the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) in accordance with § 1921. Several provisions of MIFPA raise the same “equal protection concerns” the Supreme Court sought to avoid in Adoptive Couple. For instance, MIFPA defines“ Indian child” as “an unmarried person who is under age 18 and is: ( 1) a member of an Indian tribe; or
 (2) eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 8. By contrast, the federal definition of “Indian child” under ICWA is more restrictive: “Indian child” means any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4). It is now clear under Adoptive Couple, that while ICWA in general may apply based upon the child’s eligibility for membership — and being the child of a member — the application of ICWA, in toto, based upon the child’s genetic or racial connection to the tribe alone, forces the same equal protection concerns Adoptive Couple sought to avoid by making its stringent protections applicable to custodial parents who were tribal members.

Likewise, MIFPA makes ICWA’s sections 1912(d) and (f) applicable — irrespective of whether a parent has had custody of an Indian child. Minn. Stat. § 260.771, subd. 2, provides, “[t]his chapter and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act are applicable without exception in any child custody proceeding, as defined in the federal act, involving an Indian child. This chapter applies to child custody proceedings involving an Indian child whether the child is in the physical or legal custody of an Indian parent, Indian custodian, Indian extended family member, or other person at the commencement of the proceedings.” This subdivision thus squarely achieves what the Supreme Court sought to avoid in Adoptive Couple — reaching a result that offends equal protection by making such sections applicable on the basis of race alone. Its constitutional validity is now highly dubious.

Other states, too, have passed laws which grant the noncustodial father the right to ICWA termination trial, purportedly “exempting” them from the reach of Adoptive Couple. See, e.g., California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 224(a) states: (2) (“It is in the interest of an Indian child that the child’s membership in the child’s Indian tribe and connection to the tribal community be encouraged and protected, regardless of whether the child is in the physical custody of an Indian parent or Indian custodian at the commencement of a child custody proceeding, the parental rights of the child’s parents have been terminated, or where the child has resided or been domiciled.”). Application of the heightened procedural protections in Section 1912 to a father who has never had custody or parented the child, and solely on the basis of a child’s racial connection to a tribe, resurrects the grave equal protection concerns the Supreme Court sought to lay to rest in Adoptive Couple by limiting Section 1912’s application to Indian families where a parent had custody.

ICWA was passed in 1978 with a laudable purpose. Congress found that “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families [were being] broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies.” 25 U.S.C. § 1901(4). Under Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the United States Supreme Court has set out some boundary lines as to how far ICWA may be extended before this laudable purpose becomes suspect and ICWA itself undermined. In that sense, the case remains an important reminder that ICWA is not a sui generis body of law, but rather must be understood and construed consistently with equal protection principles, respect for the due process rights of fit birth parents wishing to make decisions about the future care of their children, and ultimately the best interests of Indian children.

1 Mark D. Fiddler was co-counsel to the adoptive couple before the South Carolina Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Editorial assistance provided by Jason Teiken, Esq.

2 Taken verbatim from opinion. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 2554-2555 (2013). No U.S. Reporter citation for this case yet.

3 The United States Supreme Court has been clear that “[p]arental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring.” Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 260 (1983). An unwed father’s parental rights are constitutionally protected only if he has “demonstrate[d] a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child.” Lehr, 463 U.S. at 261 (emphasis added).

5 http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/

6 The ICWA defines “Indian child” as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).

http://www.mnbar.org/msba-home/msba-news/2014/05/13/family-law-forum-vol.-22-no.-2-spring-2014#.WMkEURsrKyI

Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake

 1 Response »
May 062014
 

.
To: Various Legislative Staff – 1:33 PM

I am forwarding to you a letter written today by Administrator Tom Empty SwingSullivan. I was aware of an 8-month-old passing away last week at Spirit Lake, but this was the first I heard about the newborn.

We are very distressed by this letter. What it says is beyond comprehension.

Some of whom I am writing to are genuinely concerned. Others don’t appear to be or don’t believe he is telling the truth. Yet – more than a few independent media reports have come out over the last couple years verifying and supporting exactly what Mr. Sullivan says is happening.

An April 28, 2014 report from the Associate Press notes new FBI statistics that show the “Navajo Nation [pop. 180,000] saw a sharp increase in the murder rate in 2013 and finished the year with 42 homicides, eclipsing major metropolitan areas like Seattle and Boston.” It said the 42 people killed “surpassed 40 in Boston and 32 in Seattle, both cities with populations of more than 600,000.”

No mention of how many of those in the report were below the age of 18. We won’t hazard a guess.

People – we are talking about children. We realize how difficult the problem is. But we are talking about children. Shame on all those who continue to cover up horrific crimes happening on reservations all over the U.S. simply because standing up to a tribal government complicates their jobs or reelection opportunities. We are talking about children.

Our org and many others will not go away until ALL children in the United States – no matter their heritage – are afforded safety, respect, love, and equal protection. Our government must quit treating children of tribal heritage as if they are worthless, expendable political pawns.

Our children are U.S. citizens first and foremost, and have constitutional rights. Begin to recognize that. We are not going away.


Regional Administrator Sullivan’s letter –

Tom Sullivan - Regional Administrator ACF———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF) Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake
To: “Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)” , “Sparks, Lillian (ACF)” , “Chang, Joo Yeun (ACF)” , “Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF)”
Cc: “Murray, James (ACF)” , “Greenberg, Mark (ACF)”

Ms. Mcmullen:

The criminally corrupt remain in charge at Spirit Lake. By this I mean that whenever a decision is to be made where there is a choice between the welfare and safety of children and the welfare and safety of abusers, rapists and sodomizers, the latter always seem to prevail. This is evidenced by the following eleven facts:

1. In the first week of February, 2014 the Spirit Lake Tribal Council fired Spirit Lake Associate Judge Jennifer Cross. Former Judge Cross had apparently incurred the wrath of the Council by several decision she had rendered during the prior few weeks, decisions to remove children from the homes of convicted rapists and abusers. These rapists and abusers went to the Council and prevailed on them to fire Judge Cross. They did. The Tribal Chair and another council member opposed this action but they were outvoted. The Chair does not normally vote unless there is a tie vote. How does this action of the Tribal Council contribute to the welfare and safety of Spirit Lake children?

2. The reason given by the Tribal Council for the termination of Judge Cross’ employment was that she had not passed the Bar. Judge Cross is a graduate of an accredited Law School and had been preparing for the Bar exam when fired. I understand the current Chief Judge of the Spirit Lake Tribal Court has taken and failed the state bar exam on two different occasions. Judge Cross’ replacement on the Tribal Court has only a high school diploma, no education beyond high school. How will the replacement of Judge Cross with this man contribute to the safety and welfare of the children of Spirit Lake?

3. After Judge Cross was fired these same families asked the Chair and Council to return the children who had been removed from their homes. One of those former foster parents, a twice-convicted rapist, was overheard outside the Council chambers telling the BIA Spirit Lake Superintendent how to handle the paperwork returning the two pre-teen girls back into his full time care and custody by placing only his wife’s name on those documents and keeping his name off of them. How does the placement of these pre-teen girls back into the home of a twice-convicted rapist contribute to their safety and welfare?

4. When Judge Cross applied to the Tribal Chair and Council for reinstatement, she was told by Councilwoman Brownshield, in an open meeting of the Council, “I don’t agree with your decisions.” All the other Council members nodded their heads in agreement. The Tribal Chair spoke on behalf of Judge Cross being retained. Since the vote was 4 to 0 against Judge Cross the Chair did not even have an opportunity to vote. Has this Tribal Council adopted a policy that they will fire any tribal employee who takes actions inconsistent with their desires? How does such a policy contribute to the welfare and safety of the children of Spirit Lake? How will such a policy effect the willingness of competent, qualified staff to come to Spirit Lake to work under such uncertainty?

5. One senior tribal official told me that several years ago former Tribal Social Services (TSS) director Kevin Dauphinais left two children at his home. They were a 4 year old girl and a 2 year old boy who, according to Mr. Dauphinais, needed a place to stay for a few days. They are still in that home. It was immediately obvious that both required medical attention. Subsequent review at the Grand Forks Advocacy Center (GFAC) revealed that the little girl had been being raped by her biological father. When the mother learned this, she kicked the bio dad out of their home. Shortly thereafter the bio mom brought a live-in boyfriend into that home. The live in, soon after arriving in that home, sodomized the 2 year old boy and fled the home immediately. Both BIA law enforcement and FBI were on hand at the GFAC when the rapes and sodomy were confirmed. In the intervening several years there has been no investigation of these sexual assaults on these two little children. There has been no prosecution of these monsters who sexually assaulted these two children. These monsters remain free to walk the streets of their communities, raping and sodomizing little children with no apparent fear of prosecution or imprisonment. I understand no rehabilitative services have been provided to these children to help them overcome the trauma they suffered. How does acting as though nothing bad has been inflicted on these two children contribute to the welfare and safety of children at Spirit Lake?

6. Even though it has been almost four full weeks since the four of you returned from your brief “fact-finding” visit to Spirit Lake, I have yet to see a report of your findings. I am going to receive a copy, aren’t I? I was deeply disappointed to learn from my sources and others who you met with that you had an exceptionally “rosy view” of conditions at Spirit Lake and that you really did not wish to hear any details about the abusive conditions many children have been placed in there, where they are available to be raped and tortured on a daily basis, and the failure of all supposedly responsible adults whether in positions of responsibility in tribal, state or federal government agencies, advocacy groups, religious leaders or the media to stop the carnage. If that is “fact-finding” as you define it, that is most unfortunate. How your “rosy view” and how your refusal to listen to the factual details about the continuing abuse and rape of children contributes to the safety and welfare of those children of Spirit Lake escapes me. May I ask how all of you arrived at the conclusion that your “rosy view” of Spirit Lake was a more accurate descriptor of conditions there than the detailed facts provided to you by my sources and I? What information did you rely on to reach your “rosy view”? Who provided that information? If that information is in written form, may I see a copy of it? How were you able to substantiate the accuracy of that information? How does your “rosy view” of conditions the children of Spirit Lake have been placed in contribute to their welfare and safety? Doesn’t that “rosy view” just spread a little powder and perfume around to cover up the stench emanating from the homes where these Spirit Lake children are available to be tortured and raped daily?

7. In my Tenth Mandated Report I provided detail about the father who was found by the local police in a Devils Lake motel naked in bed with his then 10 year old daughter who was also naked. The Ramsey County Attorney investigated that allegation in my Report and brought an indictment against the father for a class two felony of Gross Sexual Imposition. I find it fascinating that a county attorney receiving a single report from me is able, with only limited resources as compared to those available to the FBI, US Attorney and the BIA, to investigate and indict on facts made available in one of my Reports. There are hundreds of comparable allegations made in my thirteen Mandated Reports which fall into the jurisdiction of the FBI, US Attorney and the BIA. How odd that not one of those resulted in an arrest, indictment or tribal warrant! How does one justify your “rosy view” under these circumstances? How does one explain such gross failures by federal law enforcement?

8. I understand from my sources that you clearly stated that you are drawing a line in the sand in order to restrict the issues you will deal with to those occurring after your brief “fact-finding” visit to Spirit Lake. That means that the hundreds of those children who were placed on the orders of the prior tribal chair in homes with those who neglect, abuse and rape will be ignored in any future efforts at Spirit Lake. This also means that nothing will be done to find those dozens of children who have simply disappeared from the reservation, perhaps trafficked into the Bakken oil field man camps or into other forms of sexual slavery. This also means you will do nothing to help those parents who have been caring for undocumented children without any pay for at least two years and who now will be left to fight the county, state and tribal governments to get the papers allowing them to register these children in school, qualify for Medicaid, etc.. This also means that those young children who have been professionally evaluated, identified as being subjected to unspeakable physical and sexual abuse and who have been prevented from receiving necessary rehabilitative services by the tribal Council will continue to be ignored. Nothing will be done for them to help them to heal! How does leaving all of these Spirit Lake children behind, ineligible in your universe to receive any services, contribute to their welfare and safety? It is clear that your line in the sand will cast a broad, protective net over all those abusers and rapists who have had their way with the children of Spirit Lake for years and, in your universe, will continue without any fear of exposure, prosecution or imprisonment for their prior abuse, rape and torture of these children. Sounds like amnesty to me. By whose authority have you declared that amnesty?

9. It is my understanding that all of you have passed the word to your staff, grantees and contractors that nothing negative about conditions at Spirit Lake will be tolerated in any reports, etc. submitted to you. How sad. Children are in the full-time care and custody of predators available to be raped daily and you are whitewashing any report you get that factually describes conditions at Spirit Lake so no one’s sensibilities will be offended by any word contrary to your “rosy view”. How does such a cover-up contribute to the safety and welfare of the children at Spirit Lake?

10. The Spirit Lake Tribal Chair at a General Assembly meeting on April 29, 2014 in Fort Totten rebuked a local TV reporter for reporting on the death on Thursday, April 24, 2014 of an 8 month old who, reportedly, choked to death on a baby bottle. The reporter was excluded from the meeting as well by the Chair. Unpleasant news is never easy to handle but attempts to cover up such unpleasantness have, in my experience, lead to even more unpleasant publicity. At the same meeting one Tribal Council member tried to ban one of my sources from the reservation. No vote was taken on this matter that evening. It is intriguing that within the space of a few weeks’ time, we have conditions at Spirit Lake described in terms of a “rosy view”, I hear of an organized federal effort to stop any negative publicity about Spirit Lake and the Tribal Chair and Council openly speak of silencing the media and my sources. What a coincidence! Or as a poster I saw recently proclaimed: “Sometimes a coincidence is a plan in disguise.” Whether all of this is a plan or just a coincidence, please tell me how does any of it contribute to the safety and welfare of the children at Spirit Lake?

11. Facts do have a way of interfering with stories that are false. Within the last week, I understand there have been two infant deaths at Spirit Lake. The first was on April 24, 2014 when an infant boy, eight months old, choked to death on a baby bottle. On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, I understand, an infant less than a week old was found dead in his home in Fort Totten. This child had been born in Minot and had been brought home to Fort Totten by his 17 year old mother over the weekend. Dead bodies of infants are difficult to sweep under the rug, especially when there are two of them in five days. It is difficult to maintain that “rosy view” under these circumstances. Reports can be manipulated, if that is your intent. The press can be intimidated and people barred, if that is your intent. If you are able to do all of that, you are still left with two dead babies, hundreds of children in the care and custody of abusive and predatory biological and foster parents, available to be raped or tortured daily and dozens of children who have simply disappeared from the Reservation. What will your “rosy view” and all the rest of your efforts to minimize any discussion of the harsh conditions these children are living in contribute to the safety and welfare of these children?

How many more Spirit Lake children will never grow up because of this continuing criminal corruption? How many more Spirit Lake children will grow into adult lives of severe dysfunction as a result of the abuse, rape and torture imposed on them by the criminally corrupt?

Thomas F. Sullivan
Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

—
Elizabeth Sharon (Lisa) Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW)
PO Box 460
Hillsboro, ND 58045
administrator@caicw.org
https://caicw.org

Twitter: http://twitter.com/CAICW ( @CAICW )
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/fbCAICW.org

Spirit Lake Child Abuse: Feb. 11 Letter from Sullivan to McMullen

 Comments Off on Spirit Lake Child Abuse: Feb. 11 Letter from Sullivan to McMullen
Feb 112014
 
Lauryn Whiteshield, July 19, 2010 - June 13, 2013

Tom Sullivan’s response to offensive, child-endangering letter by his Washington DC superior, Ms. Marrianne McMullen

February 11, 2014

Ms. McMullen:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your response to Spirit Lake Chairman McDonald’s letter to me dated January 26, 2014. Tom Sullivan - Regional Administrator ACF

Your email is heavy on conclusions but light on any rationale to support those conclusions.

1. You wrote, “ACF does not have the authority or expertise to conduct investigations of suspected child abuse, and thus Tom Sullivan will not undertake such an investigation at Spirit Lake.”

The latest version of the Administration for Children and Families 2014 Strategic Plan overcomes the “authority” issue you raise. Mr. Murray, in your presence, characterized this Plan version as just about final and did not think we would get far trying to revise it during the conference call with all the Regional Administrators earlier on the afternoon of February 5, 2014. The very same day you responded to the Chairman’s letter. The 2014 Plan states in its Introduction, “we seek to support national, state, tribal and local efforts to strengthen families and communities and promote opportunity and economic mobility.”

Later in that same section the 2014 Plan states, “we seek to advance a set of key goals” followed by a listing which includes, “Promote Safety and Well-being of Children, Youth and Families;” It is difficult for me to understand how we can do any of this if we are unwilling to address and seek to stop the mental, physical and sexual abuse of children, especially when we are being informed on a daily basis about such abuse.

You have from our first meeting sought to defame me, belittling my education, experience and skills. After more than 45 years of broad-based, senior work in the design, development, management and evaluation of health and human service programs at the highest levels in both the public and private sectors all across this country. I have an established reputation for both accomplishment and integrity that will be minimally influenced by your sniping.

I will let the testimony of those who have had an opportunity to observe my work all across this Region, especially in Indian Country, and who have taken the time to speak with me about my concerns for abused children and the lifetime burden they bear due to their abuse address the issue of my expertise in these matters. On March 12, 2013, Ms. Diane Garreau, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Tribe’s ICWA Director and Founding Board Member of the ICWA Directors of the Great Sioux Nation, representing the nine South Dakota federally recognized tribes, called me and said, “I need to get someone who can speak as an expert on child abuse and neglect of American Indian kids at our Summit in a couple of months. You are the most knowledgeable person about this stuff who I know. But I also know that you have a big gag stuck in your mouth by your Agency’s leadership when it comes to speaking about this stuff. So, who would you recommend, if I cannot get you?”

Page 1

Ms. Suzanna Tiapula is an attorney and long-time Executive Director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse (NCPCA) who said on November 6, 2013, “I am really disappointed you have been denied permission to participate as faculty in our upcoming train the trainer course in Santa Fe, NM. We will not be as effective as we hoped because our best, you, will not be there.” This program,
as you know, was specifically focused on the development of a cadre of trained individuals from Indian Country who could go back to their homes and begin to address more effectively the epidemic of child abuse raging in their communities. This epidemic of child abuse has grown to its current size because our bureaucratic predecessors chose to ignore it.

This Santa Fe training was one of 11 three-day sessions which NCPCA had agreed to provide in Indian Country for essentially the same purpose all across this country as a result of my work with them. These sessions were provided at no cost to program participants, ACF or DHHS.

It has been clear to me that you have never wanted to admit that I had any expertise. You hoped that view would go unchallenged if you never allowed me to venture into the real world where children are being abused daily, available to be raped daily. Is that why you prevented me from making six trips last year, all into Indian Country and all dealing with these issues? Your actions facilitated the libel and slander of my sources and I by the criminally corrupt.

2. You also wrote, “Currently, the BIA is managing the investigations of incidents of suspected abuse at Spirit Lake and has referred some incidents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation”

My sources began reporting their concerns about Spirit Lake children more than seven years ago to the state, the BIA, FBI and US Attorney. Their reports were ignored. The documentation they provided went unread and then was shredded.

Is there something new to suggest these organizations will be any more responsive now? It seems clear to me that all law enforcement at Spirit Lake is engaged in the same do-nothing approach to their work as evidenced by the following five examples.

When a non-custodial father reported the suspected (she told him she was being sexually molested by a Level 3 offender living in her home) molestation of his 13 year old daughter to Tribal Social Services, Tribal Council and the BIA, the best any of them could do was to promise that the BIA would attempt to begin an investigation in 30 days. That was 60 days ago. It is not clear, after 60 days, that any investigation has even begun.

There have been three rapes of young ladies on the Reservation during the last three months. BIA law enforcement was notified in each case. In each case the young woman said she wanted to press charges against her rapist. This will be difficult because no victim statement was taken in any of these three cases.
There was no rape kit prepared in any of these three cases. No pictures of the bruises on the bodies of each of these women were taken. The FBI has, I understand refused to intervene and take responsibility for these three felonies. Each of these women is an enrolled Tribal member as are their rapists, The rapes occurred within the geographic confines of the reservation.

In the last 8 months there has been one serious beating of a young nurse who lives on the Reservation, allegedly by two female relatives of the former Tribal Chair. This victim too wants this case prosecuted and her attackers sent to prison. She has given the FBI and BIA law enforcement a statement describing her attack and providing the names of her attackers, pictures of the bodily damages she suffered and the names of several eyewitnesses to this attack. Nothing is apparently being done by anyone in the BIA or FBI to bring indictments in this matter. Both the victim and her alleged assailants are enrolled Tribal

Page 2
members. The assault took place within the geographic confines of the reservation.

The BIA knew the placement of those almost three year old twins in the home of their grandfather and step-grandmother in early May, 2013, was placing them in grave danger. This was proven less than 30 days later, on June 13, 2013, when one of the twins turns up dead, murdered by her step-grandmother. Despite knowing their own biological children had been removed from their care and custody, that they both had been charged with and convicted of child abuse of their own children, the BIA authorized the placement of these children in their full-time, unsupervised care and custody.

The BIA has apparently done nothing to insure the safety of that suicidal little boy who I brought to your attention on September 23, 2013. You assured me at that time that “Marilyn Kennerson with the Children’s Bureau is working with the BIA and the tribe to make sure that all appropriate measures are taken to assure the child’s safety.” Subsequent events made clear your words were hollow, The BIA has
also apparently done nothing for the two sisters who are placed in a foster home where “discipline” is administered by stripping these girls to their panties, duct-taping their hands in front of them and forcing them to sit on a stool in an uninsulated attic for hours at a time. The same can be said for the 13 year old
girl who told her Dad that she was being sexually molested by a Level Three sex offender. I gave Ms. Kennerson the names of these children as well as other relevant information about their placement more than three weeks ago during a meeting with her. It is hard to see how anything could have been done for these children if those who were supposed to be providing that help did not even know their names.

A few weeks after that meeting with Ms. Kennerson I requested an update on the condition of these children from her and have received nothing. It seems that if you have done nothing to protect children in these circumstances, the best strategy is to remain mute.

Tolerating such ineptitude from the BIA, FBI and other law enforcement especially when it results in a multi-generational failure to prosecute is troubling in light of a joint statement published on February 6, 2014 in the White House Blog by Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Jodi Gillette, Senior Advisor for Native American Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council and Raina Thiele, Associate Director White House Office of Governmental Affairs where
they wrote, “Improving the safety of our tribal communities is a priority of President Obama and his Administration….These important provisions remind us all that a victim is a victim, and that everyone is entitled to protection against any perpetrator.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in an article by Sari Horowitz entitled “New Law Offers Protection to Abused Native American Women” in the February 9, 2014 issue of the Washington Post is quoted as saying, “The numbers are staggering…It’s deplorable. …this is an issue that we have to deal with. I am simply not going to accept the fact it is acceptable for women to be abused at the rates they are being abused on native lands.”

If there is so much high level support for the thesis that all crime victims in Indian Country should be protected by aggressive prosecution of their assailants, why is so little occurring in Indian Country communities like Ft. Totten and St. Michael?

3. You also wrote, “The role of the Immediate Office of the Regional Administrator (IORA) is to provide leadership for ACF’s cross-cutting initiatives, emergency preparedness and response and administrative and communications support for ACF.”

On a conference call on February 5, 2014, just a few hours before you sent the response to Chairman McDonald you effectively endorsed the following language as part of or as an adjunct to the 2014 ACF

Page 3

Strategic Plan. Your endorsement was understandable since you wrote out the listing of the five functions of every IORA. That page and one-half started with: “Regional Administrators represent the ACF Assistant Secretary in the region, providing leadership, cross-program strategy and coalition building on the regional, state and local levels across government and advocacy centers. As a team they and their staff fill five distinct functions;”

“Function 1: Regional ACF Leadership
Regional Administrators maintain high-level relationships with state, tribal, territory and local government partners as well as university, philanthropic and other community partners and alert the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary if there are issues of concern in the states. They are the point of contact for State Commissioners/Secretaries, Governor offices; state Congressional and Legislative representatives. They represent ACF in regional, Federal Executive Boards, are ACF’s representative with the Regional Director’s office, other Federal Agency leadership, and they provide office based leadership through State Team coordination and coordination of other ACF-wide activities.”

“Function 2: Initiative Leadership
IORA lead high priority, cross-cutting program initiatives such as the Affordable Care Act, Hispanic outreach, efforts to combat human trafficking and homelessness and a number of other cross-program initiatives that do not belong to any single ACF program……..”

It is difficult to reconcile your description of the limited functions of a Regional Administrator in your letter to Chairman McDonald with your description of far more expansive functions discussed during that conference call and outlined in that page and one-half that you composed.

I recall when you stormed out of my conference room on the morning of Friday, June 14, 2013 abruptly breaking off a conversation about how best to address the issues I had been raising at Spirit Lake. You were clearly dis-satisfied with my response to the effect that such an effort would not be easy but was doable, would require the active participation of a broad coalition of Tribal, state, federal and local
organizations to begin to effectively address these issues and was consistent with the kind of efforts I had lead in the past. At a minimum I told you that every one of ACF program components had to be involved, not just Child Welfare, and that we had to partner with the Indian Health Service, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Departments of Justice, Interior, Education, Labor, HUD and the Small Business Administration. These agencies and departments represented only the federal; side of the collaboration which would be necessary.

You had a far more negative perspective, apparently frustrated in your efforts to convince me that the problems were unsolvable and were quite displeased to hear my positive recommendations on how to proceed.

4. You also wrote, “We understand that reporting of alleged abuse through non-official channels has contributed to unnecessary confusion and delay. We will continue to encourage official reporting through appropriate channels in order to ensure timely and professional investigations to protect the children of Spirit Lake.”

Since I have been the only person, other than my sources, who has been reporting suspected child abuse at Spirit Lake, I can only assume this is a not so subtle swipe at me.

Before I filed a single Mandated Report I asked our Regional Counsel where I should file them. He responded that they should be filed with the US Attorney for the District where I suspected child abuse was occurring. I did.

Page 4

All of my Thirteen Mandated Reports and supporting documentation were filed directly with the US Attorney for the District of North Dakota and with the individual the US Attorney identified for me at BIA. When Acting Assistant Secretary Sheldon prohibited me from filing those Mandated Reports, I had no choice but to file information I received from my sources with him or his designee. That is exactly what I have done. I have no control over what you do with them.

It is clear based on the case of the suicidal boy who I brought to your attention on September 23, 2013, that some, if not all, of those reports were never forwarded to anyone despite your assurances that the boy’s safety was assured due to the efforts of the BIA, the Tribe and the Children’s Bureau’s Ms. Kennerson. The fact that Ms. Kennerson had to ask me for the child’s identity three weeks ago, four months after my email from you on September 23, 2013, convinced me that your words were hollow, that you had done nothing to protect this child from self-injury or abuse at the hands of his abusive foster parents. You did not even know who this child was and neither you, nor BIA, nor the Children’s Bureau nor Ms. Kennerson did anything to determine his identity. What callous dis-regard for the safety of this suicidal little boy!

I will leave it for the citizens of Spirit Lake to inform you how ineffective it is to attempt to use the telephone numbers or resources you have identified in your letter. They can describe the number of hours, days, months, and years they have spent waiting for police to respond to a call, to answer a call so they may report a crime or for the return of indictments in especially vicious crimes.

I am attaching with this email a brief, three page write-up of a graduate of the Spirit Lake foster home system. It is entitled, “My Story”. Read it and understand the despair this now strong, resilient young woman felt as her reports of abuse, rape and neglect were ignored by those who were running the system then, when she was 5, 6 and 7 years of age. She went into the system between the ages of 4 and 5. She left it at 18. Now she is in her early 20s, an alcoholic with three children of her own and two step-sons. If she is able to achieve some level of normalcy in her life, it will be a remarkable achievement. If she can keep herself and her kids on the straight and narrow, avoiding having to put her kids into the care of
others, exposing them to the abuse she lived with as a child, she will be a great success. She recognizes the pitfalls she confronts on a daily basis and works harder than any of us to avoid them. The inter- generational abuse fostered by the corrupt criminals who must be removed cannot be allowed to continue. If it does, what this young lady has written will continue to be repeated many times over.

In one home where she was placed for several years, she was raped daily. No social worker looked in to check on her welfare during those years. What were those federal staff from BIA doing while this child was being raped daily? What kind of oversight did ACF’s Children’s Bureau provide? What kind of supervision did the state provide? Why did all of these adults allow this child to be raped daily?

If this or any other young woman slips up and has their children removed from their custody temporarily, why can’t they count on their kids being placed in a loving foster home where they will not be abused or neglected?

Thomas F. Sullivan

Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

Page 5
Letter to McMullen 021114.docx

New Documents from Federal Officials Reveal Apathy for Abused Kids on Indian Reservations

 2 Responses »
Dec 032013
 
Corruption at the U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC

In October, CNN did a segment called “Sexual abuse rampant on Indian Reservation.” Questions were raised as to how and why our federal government could be turning its back on children on reservations across the country. Tom Sullivan, Regional Administrator for the federal ACF, had been telling his superiors about the horrific handling of children for over a year. We now have documents between Tom Sullivan and his superiors.

Had the ACF listened to him and done its job, toddler Lauryn Whiteshield would be alive right now.

Our children have been viewed as collateral damage in DC’s ongoing political games for far too long.

An email from Tom Sullivan to his superiors is below. More documents to follow.

—————————————————-

Congressman Issa,

Thursday morning, Mr. Kenneth Martin, senior aide to Senator Cantwell, Chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, made several disparaging remarks concerning ACF Regional Administrator, Thomas Sullivan and suggested a hearing would reveal lies.

What Mr. Sullivan had been pointing out in a series of mandated reports is that the ACF, BIA, FBI and US attorney have not been doing their jobs on the Spirit Lake Reservation. In fact, what many Spirit Lake tribal members have been saying is that our federal government is allowing tragedy to occur despite the pleas of people living there.

We want that hearing Mr. Martin suggested. We need our government to investigate Mr. Sullivan’s claims – and we need our government to investigate similar situations on other reservations.

Read the emails:

———- Forwarded message ———-

Lauryn Whiteshield, July 19, 2010 - June 13, 2013

Lauryn Whiteshield, July 19, 2010 – June 13, 2013

From: “Elizabeth Morris”
Date: Nov 22, 2013 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Tom Sullivan’s email concerning Spirit Lake
To: “Martin, Kenneth (Indian Affairs)”
Cc: “Thompson, Mariah (Indian Affairs)”

Thank you for your note, Mr. Martin. I appreciate it.I hope you will also concede at some point that we are not “cherry picking.” It is time to admit the depth of what is happening on many reservations. No more playing politics with the lives of a vulnerable community – let alone vulnerable children.

My sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, nieces, nephews – at the very least – are worth much more than that, (if I can speak personally. It is after all, for personal reasons that my husband and I began this work in the first place.)

But I will not stop with just our extended family. Too many people have come asking for help.

We insist that the facts Mr. Sullivan and others have presented be acted upon.

Thank you again for your response.

—————

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martin, Kenneth (Indian Affairs) wrote:

Ms. Morris,

Thank you for the email. I apologize as I must have misspoke, as I have no information on the issues surrounding Mr. Sullivan and did not intend to insinuate otherwise. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Kenneth Martin

—————-

From: Elizabeth Morris [mailto:administrator@caicw.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:15 PM
To: Thompson, Mariah (Indian Affairs); Martin, Kenneth (Indian Affairs)
Subject: Mr. Tom Sullivan’s email concerning Spirit Lake

Ms. Thompson and Mr. Martin

Shortly after our conversation concerning Mr. Tom Sullivan of the ACF, I received this email. It appears to address some of the very issues we had discussed.

Mr. Martin, you had suggested that a hearing would prove Mr. Sullivan had lied. I wonder if it might come to that.

I would appreciate your comments concerning the below. Thanks –

—————————————-

Begin forwarded message:
From: “Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)”
Date: November 21, 2013 1:45:05 PM EST
To: “Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)”
Cc: “Chang, Joo Yeun (ACF)” , “McCauley, Mike (ACF)” , “Greenberg, Mark (ACF)”

Subject: Spirit Lake

Marrianne:

In the early evening of October 21, 2013, CNN broadcast a detailed and substantive report entitled “Sex Abuse Rampant on Indian Reservation” about the epidemic of child sexual abuse on the Spirit Lake Reservation. That broadcast ran a little more than 6 months after former Acting Assistant Secretary Sheldon’s April 15, 2013 letter to me prohibiting me, in my official capacity as Denver Regional Administrator for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), from filing any more Mandated Reports about child sexual abuse at Spirit Lake. Since that policy applied only to me, I believed it was retaliatory and discriminatory.

Your refusal to announce this new policy with any of the other 1500 ACF employees across this country is a clear signal to me that I have been singled out for this retaliatory and discriminatory action which, because of your silence, continues to this very day.

Your continuing exclusion of me from any participation in efforts to address the problems at Spirit Lake is further evidence of retaliation and discrimination.

Mr. Sheldon’s letter to me was accompanied by letters to the BIA’s Ms. Settles and US Attorney Purdon. Unlike his letter to me, his letters to them were full of high praise for their efforts in addressing the epidemic of child sexual abuse at Spirit Lake..

Since I had no contact with Mr. Sheldon after October 11, 2012 and since at that time he had made clear his displeasure with my Mandated Reports, and since I had responded to that displeasure with extensive factual documentation of conditions at Spirit Lake, I was surprised by his letter to me. His unqualified endorsement of the efforts of Ms. Settles and Mr. Purdon was and still is shocking, lacking, as it did, any factual basis for the high praise heaped on them. This contrasted sharply with the factual detail provided in my Mandated Reports.

Believing that Mr. Sheldon must have had some factual basis for the position detailed in his letters to Ms. Settles and Mr. Purdon, I have asked twice for those facts. None have been provided. My emails have been ignored by both you and Mr. Sheldon. I can only presume there are no facts available to justify your position.

My sources have been complaining to Tribal, state and federal agency leadership for more than five years about conditions at Spirit Lake and the maltreatment of children there. Their complaints have been ignored and continue to be ignored. Their documentation unread and then shredded.

I have filed 13 Mandated Reports. All have been ignored or characterized as rumors or exaggerations by Tribal, state, BIA, DOJ as well as other federal agencies. Facts and truth mean little to those charged with defending both the status quo at Spirit Lake and themselves. More importantly the safety of abused American Indian children at Spirit Lake appears to have meant even less. As a result of their misleading puffery more than 100 children remain in the full time care and custody of sexual predators available to be raped daily.

On September 23, 2013, I sent an email to Mr. Sheldon concerning the situation with a young suicidal boy who had fled his foster home. You responded that “Marilyn Kennerson is working with the BIA and tribe to make sure all appropriate measures are being taken to assure this child’s safety.” My sources inform me that nothing has changed for this young boy.

Claims have been made that every allegation in my Mandated Reports have been investigated. Many of my sources say otherwise because they have not been interviewed by anyone in law enforcement. This claim becomes even harder to believe when the US Attorney for North Dakota has indicted, sought a plea deal or prosecuted only one case of child sexual abuse originating on the Spirit Lake Reservation in the last 25 months. I have been told by experienced child protection workers from Spirit Lake that in a typical year there are, on average, 50 cases of child sexual abuse reported, investigated, confirmed and referred for prosecution. Why has the US Attorney prosecuted only one case of child sexual abuse from Spirit Lake in the last 25 months, a case where the actual sexual abuse occurred between 2007 – 2009. Just learned the US Attorney for North Dakota has filed one more charge of child sexual abuse in the last few days, doubling his numbers for the prior 24 months.

Law enforcement at every level at Spirit Lake, including the FBI, BIA, Tribal police and the US Attorney have allowed the Tribal Council to determine which criminal activities will be investigated and prosecuted. For confirmation of this fact please review the last page of the Spirit Lake Tribal Council Meeting Minutes for September 27, 2013, attached for your convenience.

The apparent unwillingness of government at any level to protect the children at Spirit Lake from abuse creates the impression there is a large, unannounced experiment being conducted at Spirit Lake to determine what harm, if any, would be done to abused children who are returned to the care of either their abusive biological parents or abusive foster parents before these parents have completed their court-ordered rehabilitation therapy. But in order for such an experiment to be conducted there would have to be a rigorous research design, with control groups, opportunities for informed consent and extensive data collection. No such safeguards are apparent but children continue to be placed with abusive adults. How strange, all we have is abused children being returned to abusive parents with none of the other elements required for a legitimate research project. Why is such experimentation on these children being tolerated?

Certainly, no one can claim the hypothesis that abused children can be returned to their abusive homes without harm to those children has been proven. Who is responsible for attempting to prove it at Spirit Lake?

A perfect example of this experimentation and the Tribal Council’s control of criminal investigation and prosecution at Spirit Lake is the Tribal Court order from 5 – 6 months ago returning to a biological mother her children even though she has been charged with and convicted in Tribal Court of sexual abuse of her children – she was discovered by police in bed having sex with a male friend while all her children, one of them totally naked, were in the same bed.

The biological mom lives with her children’s grandfather. The children were recently evaluated at the Red River Advocacy Center (RRAC) and it was determined that two of the girls, ages 6 and 7, were being sexually abused by that very same grandfather. The recommendation of the RRAC was that these children were “not to be left alone with the grandfather”. There is a young teenage son in this family who attempted suicide three times before his 14th birthday. The grandfather who has never been charged or prosecuted for his criminal sexual assaults on his granddaughters is the uncle of a Tribal Council member. There is no indication that anyone from law enforcement has launched an investigation of the grandfather’s alleged sexual abuse. It is likely that Council Member would oppose any Council Motion to refer this situation for criminal investigation of his uncle.

The father of these children has petitioned Tribal Court to assume custody. I understand his petitions have been routinely dismissed even though he is ready, able and willing to assume responsibility for his children, caring for them in a safe home. The mother of these children is an enrolled Tribal member. Their father is not.

Conducting an assessment at this point after more than five years of complaints from my sources and after my 13 Mandated Reports seems to simply delay the desperately needed corrective action to get those 100 children to safety. As one of my sources recently wrote, “…when will the government realize we are serious about this….kids are being raped and nobody in law enforcement gives a damn”.

Natalie Stites, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and former Project Coordinator in the Attorney General’s office on the Rosebud Reservation writing in LastRealIndians.com in December, 2011 speaks words that need to be considered here, “There are thousands of Lakota, Dakota and Nakota children experiencing abuse and neglect….. Over a third of women raped today were sexually assaulted as children. Sadly all too often abused and neglected children become perpetrators themselves as adolescents and as adults……..There are many complex reasons for the conditions facing the children today: lack of compassion, colonization, epigenetics, grief, violence, the feminization of poverty, the school-to-prison pipeline, organized sexual abuse, unemployment, mental illness, addiction, racism, cultural oppression. These are the roots of our current situation…………….

However, try explaining this to the 5 year old boy who hasn’t eaten a meal in two days, or a beaten 8 year old girl caring for an infant and a toddler like she’s the parent, or a 15 year old youth who faces and eventually joins his addicted parents and the drunken strangers they bring home to party every night. Try explaining to these children why family members, social workers, policy makers, police, courts, schools, health care providers cannot protect them, even after their own parents fail them, or abandon them, or hurt them. Who takes responsibility for this? We must.”

When will we take responsibility?

After your assessment? How long will that take?

How many more months will the Tribe allow this experimentation with their children to continue?

Have a great Thanksgiving.
Thomas F. Sullivan
Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

———————————————-

From: Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:22 AM
To: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)
Cc: Chang, Joo Yeun (ACF/ACYF) (ACF); McCauley, Mike (ACF)
Subject: Spirit Lake

Good morning Tom: Attached and below is a memo about ACF’s work on Spirit Lake moving forward.

Tom, as a courtesy based on your expressed interest in matters at Spirit Lake, I wanted to let you know that Children’s Bureau has been actively working with the Spirit Lake tribe on improving their child protection services.

Currently, the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services, funded by CB, is conducting an assessment of Spirit Lake social services. As you may know, numerous assessments have been started over the past 18 months, but leadership changes have stalled and ultimately stopped these processes. Now, however, the new Tribal chair and the new social services director are moving forward with the assessment. Once this assessment is complete, it will provide a roadmap for the policies, practices, procedures and staffing levels that the Tribe needs to establish a successful agency. The Children’s Bureau will work hand-in-hand with the Tribe to follow that map and to ensure that all available resources are brought to bear for the Tribe to be successful in better protecting its children.

I want to be clear with you that the Children’s Bureau is leading this effort for ACF and will manage work with both the Tribal leadership and the Tribal social services staff moving forward. The Children’s Bureau will also be the principal liaison with the state of North Dakota, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Dept. of Justice to address child protective issues at Spirit Lake.

As the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary, the Children’s Bureau, and the Administration for Native Americans have worked to address concerns at Spirit Lake over the past year, it has become clear that Region 8 IORA involvement has damaged some of the most critical relationships needed for achieving progress for the children and families of Spirit Lake. It is our full intention to rebuild these relationships and move forward in a collegial and productive direction.

Tom, I know you share ACF’s goal of establishing a strong social service system at Spirit Lake that can act quickly and effectively to protect children who may be in danger. It is my expectation that you will refer all future inquiries to the Department concerning Spirit Lake to the Children’s Bureau and respect the Bureau’s role in leading and coordinating the Department’s efforts to achieve the goal of protecting Spirit Lake’s children.

————————————————————

### END FORWARDED MESSAGE

Who is “Stealing” WHOSE Kids?

 Comments Off on Who is “Stealing” WHOSE Kids?
Nov 182013
 
Dorothy, Andrew, and Walter, June 1983

Every now and then, someone accuses us of being an evil adoption org, “stealing” babies from families. I usually delete the remarks because they are off-the-wall – unrelated to and disconnected with what we actually do.

We have already explained off and on over the last few months what we are. There is no desire to further waste time addressing baseless accusations from people who aren’t interested in reading what has already been written.

Nevertheless, it has been suggested that I state it one more time, and then simply cite this page when appropriate.

Alright.

#1) We have never “taken” anyone’s children. We are not a social service, adoption agency, or orphanage. We don’t house children (other than our OWN), transport children, or facilitate any kind of child custody transfer. There isn’t one child we have EVER “taken” – period.

#2) The original goal, way before my husband and I started this org, was to stand up for our OWN rights as parents. I will say it again. I, my husband, and our family and friends stood up to say that we have the right to determine the best interest of our OWN children. This is OUR right – not the right of tribal or federal government.

#3) Like it or not – my husband (100% Minnesota Chippewa heritage) was a Christian. He had visited his cousin, (a tribal member who was an evangelical preacher) and became a Christian in 1988. Months later, he led me to the Lord. He, by the way, also founded this org. So one accusation against CAICW – the talk of “white” people stuffing religion down the throats of tribal members – is both frivolous and, well… racist.

#4) Having seen so much pain inflicted on so many family members … having looked on the battered face of a two-year-old in a casket, chased a drunk off of a 10-year-old, stood in the closet where a beautiful 16-year-old had hanged herself, and much more – We knew we had to do something. Yup. We wanted to rescue family members – of all the terrible things.

Further, knowing first hand the depth of crime, corruption and abuse on my husband’s reservation, we knew we could not raise our own children in Indian Country. If something were to happen to us, we wanted a member of our church and his wife – in fact, a man who happened to be our state representative – to be guardians over our children.

Contrary to the uninformed mantra of some who claim we are fighting to ‘take’ their children – the reality is we’ve been fighting to keep people of their view point away from our own children.

#5) That said – ICWA became a problem. Knowing that ICWA gives tribal governments jurisdiction over our kids if we died, and hearing from people that tribal governments had interfered with placement of children into Christian homes – and knowing that the ICWA mandates that the children be raised in what is said to be the culture of the tribe, whether parents agree or not – we feared that our children could be placed contrary to our wishes. We felt angry that our Congress would pass such an invasive law.

#6) Around 1995 or so, we began writing about the unconstitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). People, seeing our writing on the internet, contacted us to ask for help. We were just a couple of regular parents, not trying to get people to contact us. But we listened and cared about their situations. We researched, learned, and grew. The org was born in February, 2004.

#7) The ONLY people we have ever advocated for is families who – because they saw what we have written – CONTACTED US asking for help. We have never gone and pushed ourselves into any situation – unlike some of the tribal governments we kept hearing about, who were pushing themselves into private family situations constantly.

#8) The calls came from people crossing all demographics: different heritages, incomes, backgrounds, ages and locations. We have served birth parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, foster parents and adoptive parents. …This includes low-income tribal members living within Reservation boundaries.

Unlike others, we don’t discriminate.

#9) Our membership includes former ICWA children – children who felt abused by the Indian Child Welfare Act and tribal government. Children who were very happy with their foster and adoptive homes, did not want to be placed with relatives on the reservation, and begged their tribe to leave them alone. One example is a girl that 60 Minutes did a story on about twenty years ago during her struggle against ICWA. The Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Dr. William B. Allen, was involved with trying to help her at that time. She joined us in DC last year to tell legislative offices about her ordeal.

#10) The child’s true best interest is priority. – Having been a registered nurse, been a day care provider, raised nine children of heritage and taken care of at least a dozen more at various times – I don’t accept what some tribal governments claim to be needed by kids.
I am not alone. Many tribal members are tired of seeing their families hurt year after year after year and feel let down by both tribal and federal government. They want REAL help and they want it NOW.

#11) Despite what some Congressmen and Tribal leaders say – more money isn’t going to fix things. Action is what is needed. Many tribal members feel that more money will simply add to what is already lining the pockets of corrupt tribal officials.

Stop pushing more “task-forces” or 3 year “Commissions.” Start, instead, with enforcing the law and jailing criminals.

#12) Needless to say, some Tribal leaders don’t want people to talk about the real problems. Real problems are supposed to be covered up and not ever mentioned. So – our talking about real people and real tragedy makes some tribal leaders angry.

#13) We will not stand down. 60 tribal governments are currently considering expanding their membership criteria to include children who are of extremely little heritage and whose families could have disassociated with Indian Country generations ago. The federal government gives tribal leaders full authority to “determine their own membership” – so they can expand membership to include a child despite objection by parents and grandparents.

Further – these same governments have discussed getting rid of the “Supremacy Clause” from their constitutions in order that they not need submit to federal or Supreme courts. This means that tribal members will be without appeal outside of the tribal system. Those who disagree with tribal leaders will be without recourse.

And with laws like the new version of the Violence Against Women Act – which states if either the victim or perpetrator in a crime is tribal, the tribal court has jurisdiction – more and more non-members will find themselves in tribal court without recourse. Mind you – if the perp of a violent act is a tribal member, the victim, whether a member or non-member, is forced into tribal court as well.

Even victims who are tribal members could have good cause not to want to share their pain in tribal court. Imagine if the perp is the son of a tribal official. That’s not an unheard of scenario.

It’s time to see the woods through the trees. For those who think this org and others have “no business” interfering with tribal sovereignty – understand that tribal sovereignty has no business interfering with independent U.S. citizens.

The current trajectory will allow tribal governments to interfere with even more families. If the tribal constitution is changed, the ICWA could apply to our own family for generations. (Kind of the opposite of what my husband and I wanted to see happen.)

Q) Who are the undeclared entities currently “taking” other people’s children across the country?

A) Tribal governments – some of whom are lowering membership criteria and pushing Congress to tighten ICWA to force their jurisdiction on others – including unwed, non-tribal mothers. (Who have been referred to as a “loophole” left open by a June Supreme Court case.)

Q) What was the original agenda of this org’s founders – before the org was started?

A) To demand tribal governments leave our kids alone. To stop Congress from unconstitutionally mandating relationship with tribal government and stop mandating the culture and religion a child has to grow up in.

Q) What is the current agenda of CAICW?

To assist and advocate for children and families in their pursuit autonomy, strength and wholeness – and to do our advocacy in relationship with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

To show and tell how Jesus Christ saved and changed our lives and the lives of others.

To declare the independence of United States citizens above that of tribal sovereignty.

Or – it could be put this way: To assist and advocate for families in their struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness –

 Older Entries