Hurting from ICWA? Help now on Facebook – CAICW

 Comments Off on Hurting from ICWA? Help now on Facebook – CAICW
Oct 252010
 
Follow CAICW on Twitter  
 

Though proponents of the ICWA argue that the act has safeguards to prevent misuse, scores of multi-racial children have been hurt by misapplication of the Indian Child Welfare Act. These children and their families need encouragement, prayer, and legal help. The biggest way for all of us to help these families is to spread the letters posted on caicw.org (https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html) and let the rest of America know what is going on.

Please help us by sharing the cause!


CAICW is the only National organization advocating for families faced with loss of their children do to what amounts to a racial law. Our advocacy is both Judicial and Legislative as well as being a prayer resource for the families and a shoulder to cry on.

I’d like to encourage families to come to CAICW’s facebook page, where they can connect with other families and discuss, encourage, share insights, share case law, share names of possible attorney’s, and pray for each other.

If you know families hurt by ICWA, please share this.


We are also currently organizing a trip to DC for January, 2011 where we will meet with Gary Bauer of the American Values org, Dr. William Allen, the former Chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights, Senator Tom Coburn’s staff, and many more, to let them know of the problem, advocate for the families, and discuss initiatives that will protect these children. Join US!


Thanks so much for your support!

To help spread the word – Please also share these important links:


Letters from Families: https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html


Facebook Page: http://facebook.com/fbCAICW.org


Home Website: https://www.caicw.org


Cause page: http://www.causes.com/causes/537834


TWITTER: http://twitter.com/CAICW


EMAIL: administrator@caicw.org
.

FaceBook Cause – Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare

 Comments Off on FaceBook Cause – Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Oct 232010
 

Please join the CAICW Cause as we work to support, encourage and protect   children. Educating others about how the Indian Child Wefare Act is hurting families is vital.

Simply passing the links on to others helps – because the more people that know – the more help we will eventually be able to get. And most people don’t know. When they read the stories, they are shocked to learn this type of thing is happening to children in the US.

And that’s the biggest need for us to begin with  – that other’s learn what is happening.

http://www.causes.com/causes/537834
.

To Those that Love an ICWA Child:

 Comments Off on To Those that Love an ICWA Child:
Jun 112010
 

.

– I am one of those –

– that person you are afraid of. That person with whom children were placed, not because I could handle them, not because I even knew them …

In fact, my abilities, emotional stability, and character were never a factor at all. My husband was their grandfather. That’s all that mattered. No one from the tribe or the court ever talked to me about whether I could handle four more kids on top of my own five. No Guardian Ad Litem called to chat. No one seemed to care whether I could do this or not.

The Tribe did finally send a couple women over to do a “home study,” but that was a good year or more after they had already placed the kids with us. That was the first, and last, time anyone checked on our home.

And they didn’t even check the bedrooms. If they had, they would have discovered that not all the kids had their own beds. In fact, not all the kids even had bedrooms. We used two of our shops storage rooms for some of the kids.

No, the two tribal “social workers” who flew in from another state and who we were told would spend two days with us, chatted with my husband for about an hour, then asked how to get to a local attraction. They were anxious to get started with their paid vacation. We were happy to give them directions and be finished with the faux “home study.”

That was it. Never saw them again.

So…our family knows first hand what it takes to be one of our tribe’s “acceptable” Indian homes.

How did it turn out? I’d like to say that we became the Brady Bunch. But it’s not that simple.

In some ways, at various points of time, we did great. There was love, laughs, and kindness, along with the stress, sibling rivalry, and melt downs. The four kids, all under 7 when they arrived, started calling us Mom and Dad, just as our first five did, and all the kids, most of whom were the same age, began referring to each other as brothers & sisters.

But our lives were far from story book (Or even TV series). The reality of the effects of alcohol exposure, crack exposure, and neglect on the four wove through all of our lives. It’s one thing if a family is trying to help one child get through this kind of storm. It’s quite another when one is trying to help four without training, support, or resources – while trying to raise your own five young children at the same time.

Yup. The tribe mandated the ICWA thing, and then left us hanging.

Why did I do it? Why didn’t I just say “No?” Again, because of ICWA. I had seen the conditions in which my husband’s nephews, nieces and other grandchildren were being made to live. I knew that even though I was on the edge of losing my mind, our home was still better and safer than any other that the tribe might choose. I couldn’t turn these four away to that kind of life. Believe it or not—as much as I felt like a basket case on my better days and the wicked witch on my worst, our home was truly the best these children would get in an ICWA placement.

And we had Jesus Christ to lean on, and a wonderful, loving, large church family. Without these, I truly might have lost my mind.

Three years after my husband was given custody, he was diagnosed with cancer. Four years later, he passed away. Through all those hard years, church brothers & sisters practically carried us.

After he passed, though, is when real troubles began. It was as if a dam of emotions, pent up and waiting, suddenly exploded. Some of it was the grief of birth children, some the impulse of teen-agers. The hardest though, was the eruption of FAE angst and the familial predilection to alcoholism as children entered adolescence one by one.

Today the storm is over. Only four of the nine are still minors. At this point in our story, despite years of trying to teach the children the dangers of drugs, all is not well.

Just last week, I gave custody of one of the grandchildren to the county in order that he be able to get the mental health help that he needs, as well as for the protection of the other children still in the home. I did this because the two grandchildren that had thus far reached adulthood have returned to the birth family—as well as the destructive family lifestyle. I now needed to change how I was doing things in order to prevent the same outcome with this child.

I just wish I had fully realized years ago how necessary trained help was, so that the other two might have benefitted as well. (By the way, through correct interpretation of the law, as we explained it to the judge, this particular custody transfer was deemed non-ICWA.)

Long story short—Contrary to the belief of Congress and one-sided, tribal government testimony, the “best interest of the child” does NOT require a relative placement or even an Indian placement.

As much as many tribal leaders want society to believe that all children of heritage are “theirs” and have a “connection” to tribal culture that will crush them if broken, it’s just not true. To some people such things matter, to others, it doesn’t.

My birth children and grandchildren, for example, would be crushed if forced to live on the reservation. My Children may be 50% Indian, but they have been raised in much safer, loving communities than the reservation community in which they are enrolled. Living on the reservation would have destroyed them.

Further, most children aren’t “just” Indian. Ours are also Irish, Scottish, German and even Jewish. All their heritages are equally important. Most children of tribal heritage have other, equally important heritages, and they are all US citizens who should be constitutionally given Equal Protection. Meaning – contrary to common practice today, enrolled children should not be left in conditions that children of any other heritage would be removed from. They are not mere chattel—a means for additional funding— for tribal governments.

Many children, after suffering abuse and neglect, need real help, and several tribal governments are negligent in that they place them into situations where they can not get it.

Time and again I have seen children placed by their tribe into violent, verbally, physically, and even sexually abusive, drug infested homes. I have seen little or no attention given to the emotional and mental health issues these children have had. That isn’t to say that no tribal governments care—it’s just to say that I, having lived in this particular extended family for 30 some years, haven’t seen it.

ICWA, in all our family experience, is a crime against children.

.

Case Law for Existing Indian Family Doctrine

 Comments Off on Case Law for Existing Indian Family Doctrine
May 112010
 

.Holyfield – the first case in which the federal high court has construed ICWA,

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 US 30 (1989) Docket No. 87-980, Argued January 11, 1989, Decided April 3, 1989, CITATION: 490 U.S. 30, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989),

DISCUSSION: I A The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963, was the product of rising concern in the mid-1970’s over the consequences to Indian children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of abusive child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.

Dissenting footnotes: STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined.

[ Footnote 8 ] The explanation of this subsection in the House Report reads as follows: “Subsection (b) directs a State court, having jurisdiction over an Indian child custody proceeding to transfer such proceeding, absent good cause to the contrary, to the appropriate tribal court upon the petition of the parents or the Indian tribe. Either parent is given the right to veto such transfer. The subsection is intended to permit a State court to apply a modified doctrine of forum non conveniens, in appropriate cases, to insure [490 U.S. 30, 61] that the rights of the child as an Indian, the Indian parents or custodian, and the tribe are fully protected.” Id., at 21. In commenting on the provision, the Department of Justice suggested that the section should be clarified to make it perfectly clear that a state court need not surrender jurisdiction of a child custody proceeding if the Indian parent objected. The Department of Justice letter stated:

“Section 101(b) should be amended to prohibit clearly the transfer of a child
placement proceeding to a tribal court when any parent or child over the age of
12 objects to the transfer.” Id., at 32.

Although the specific suggestion made by the Department of Justice was not in fact implemented, it is noteworthy that there is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the recommended change was in any way inconsistent with any of the purposes of the statute.

[ Footnote 9 ] Chief Isaac elsewhere expressed a similar concern for the rights of parents with reference to another provision. See Hearing, supra n. 1, at 158 (statement on behalf of National Tribal Chairmen’s Association)

(“We believe the tribe should receive notice in all such cases but where the
child is neither a resident nor domiciliary of the reservation intervention
should require the consent of the natural parents or the blood relative in whose
custody the child has been left by the natural parents. It seems there is a
great potential in the provisions of section 101(c) for infringing parental
wishes and rights”).

But when an Indian child is deliberately abandoned by both parents to a person off the reservation, no purpose of the ICWA is served by closing the state courthouse door to them. The interests of the parents, the Indian child, and the tribe in preventing the unwarranted removal of Indian children from their families and from the reservation are protected by the Act’s substantive and procedural provisions. In addition, if both parents have intentionally invoked the jurisdiction of the state court in an action involving a non-Indian, no interest in tribal self-governance is implicated. See McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164, 173 (1973); Williams v. [490 U.S. 30, 64] Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219 -220 (1959); Felix v. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317, 332 (1892).


In Bridget R. –In re Bridget R. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Bridget R.). January 19, 1996 , LLR No. 9601041.CA, Cite as: LLR 1996.CA.41 – The Pomo Twins

[33] As we explain, recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine is necessary in a case such as this in order to preserve ICWA’s constitutionality. We hold that under the Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, ICWA does not and cannot apply to invalidate a voluntary termination of parental rights respecting an Indian child who is not domiciled on a reservation, unless the child’s biological parent, or parents, are not only of American Indian descent, but also maintain a significant social, cultural or political relationship with their tribe.

[145] *fn11 We note in passing that Congress in 1987 failed to approve amendments to ICWA which were described in materials considered by the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs as having the effect of precluding application of the existing Indian family doctrine. (See Hearings before the Senate Select Com. on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. on Oversight Hearings on the Indian Child Welfare Act, Nov. 10, 1987, Appendix B, pp. 167-171.)

In re Alexandria Y.
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1483, –

which applied the “existing Indian family doctrine” to a proceeding to terminate parental rights and implement a pre-adoptive placement.

…., the Fourth District held that “recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA” (In re Alexandria Y., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493), and held that the trial court had acted properly in refusing to apply the ICWA “because neither [the child] nor [the mother] had any significant social, cultural, or political relationship with Indian life; thus, there was no existing Indian family to preserve.” (Id. at p. 1485.)

The court observed that not only did neither the mother nor the child have any relationship with the tribe, but also that the father was Hispanic, and that the child was placed in a preadoptive home where Spanish was spoken. “Under these circumstances,” the court commented, “it would be anomalous to allow the ICWA to govern the termination proceedings. It was clearly not the intent of the Congress to do so.” (Id. at p. 1494.)


From Santos y,
In re SANTOS Y., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law, In re Santos Y. (2001) , Cal.App.4th [No. B144822. Second Dist., Div. Two. July 20, 2001.]

“Application of the ICWA to a child whose only connection with an Indian tribe is a one-quarter genetic contribution does not serve the purpose for which the ICWA was enacted, “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families” (25 U.S.C. § 1902).”

The court paid “particular attention to In re Bridget R., and quoted from Bridget R.’s due process and equal protection analysis at relative length.”

They also said, “We do not disagree with the proposition that preserving Native-American culture is a significant, if not compelling, governmental interest. We do not, however, see that interest being served by applying the ICWA to a multi-ethnic child who has had a minimal relationship with his assimilated parents, particularly when the tribal interests “can serve no purpose which is sufficiently compelling to overcome the child’s right to remain in the home where he . . . is loved and well cared for, with people to whom the child is daily becoming more attached by bonds of affection and among whom the child feels secure to learn and grow.” (In re Bridget R., supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508.)”

Finally, Santos states, “Congress considered amending the ICWA to preclude application of the “existing Indian family doctrine” but did not do so.”

RE: Santos Footnotes, – Existing Family Doctrine:

¬FN 15. Accepting the doctrine: Alabama (S.A. v. E.J.P. (Ala.Civ.App. 1990) 571 So.2d 1187); Indiana (Matter of Adoption of T.R.M. (Ind. 1988) 525 N.E.2d 298); Kansas (Matter of Adoption of Baby Boy L. (Kan. 1982) 643 P.2d 168); Kentucky (Rye v. Weasel (Ky. 1996) 934 S.W. 2d 257); Missouri (In Interest of S.A.M. (Mo.App. 1986) 703 S.W.2d 603); New York (In re Adoption of Baby Girl S. (Sur. 1999) 690 N.Y.S. 2d 907); Oklahoma (Matter of Adoption of Baby Boy D. (Ok. 1985) 742 P.2d 1059); Tennessee (In re Morgan (Tenn.Ct.App. 1997) WL 716880); Washington (Matter of Adoption of Crews (Wash. 1992) 825 P.2d 305).

Rejecting the doctrine: Alaska (Matter of Adoption of T.N.F. (Alaska 1989) 781 P.2d 973); Idaho (Matter of Baby Boy Doe (Idaho 1993) 849 P.2d 925); Illinois (In re Adoption of S.S. (Ill. 1995) 657 N.E.2d 935); New Jersey (Matter of Adoption of a Child of Indian Heritage (N.J. 1988) 111 N.J. 155, 543 A.2d 925); South Dakota (Matter of Adoption of Baade (S.D. 1990) 462 N.W.2d 485); Utah (State, in Interest of D.A.C. (Utah App. 1997) 933 P.2d 993.)
United States Code Title 25 – Indians Chapter 21 – Indian Child Welfare

§ 1911. Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings(b) Transfer of proceedings; declination by tribal Court: 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, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe: Provided, That such transfer shall be subject to declination by the tribal court of such tribe.

(Ftn 1) “The 2000 Census indicated that as much at 66 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population live in urban areas,” the Senate Indian Affairs Committee wrote in a views and estimates letter on March 2 2007. http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/001803.asp
(ftn2) 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and therefore have all the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

.

Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids

 Comments Off on Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids
May 092010
 

.
But it’s not always a slam-dunk…

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/80121_grandmom26.shtml

Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids
Friday, July 26, 2002By PAUL SHUKOVSKY

The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Jewish grandmother will be allowed to continue raising her Native American grandchildren in her Tacoma home despite assertions from the mother that the children should be with her.

In a legal battle that balanced cultural protections for Indian families and tribes with the best interests of the children, the court ruled that transferring custody to the mother “would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children.”

In 1992, Rebecca Johnston, an Alaskan Indian, and her boyfriend, Mark Mahaney, were living in Anchorage and both were struggling with the ravages of alcohol abuse, according to court documents. That March, they sent their two toddlers to live with their grandmother Erika Mahaney, also of Anchorage. The next year, they gave temporary legal custody to the grandmother, who moved with the youngsters to Tacoma.

The girl, now about 14, and the boy, about 12, have been living with their grandmother ever since and have been raised Jewish, attending Hebrew school and taking Yiddish lessons. The girl, according to court records, describes herself as being Jewish.

Over the years, Rebecca Johnston has made several attempts to regain custody of her children, asserting that she can give them a stable home environment.

An attempt to regain custody in 1994 failed when Erika Mahaney obtained, in Pierce County Superior Court, a temporary non-parental custody order.

Erika Mahaney told the court that the children suffered from “the effects of sexual abuse, domestic violence, general neglect and abandonment” while under their mother’s care.

Johnston denied allegations that she used illegal drugs, and accusations from the girl that she sexually abused her. Johnston admits that she saw her younger brother sexually molest both children. In addition, she spent time behind bars after convictions for driving while intoxicated.

The children have been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and other behavioral disorders associated with sexual abuse.

The court ordered that it was in the best interest of the children for the grandmother to retain custody.

Johnston brought her custody battle to the state Court of Appeals in 1999, asserting that under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the Superior Court had not evaluated the evidence against her using the “clear and convincing standard” listed in federal Bureau of Indian Affairs guidelines.

And she said that under the law, an expert versed in Indian culture should have been involved in evaluating the evidence against her.

The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978 “to promote the security and stability of Indian tribes” while protecting the best interests of Indian children. The law gives a clear preference for keeping Indian children with their families and placing Indian children who must be removed from their homes within their own families or Indian tribes.

The appellate court agreed with the mother and overturned the trial court ruling. The grandmother then brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed Mahaney a victory by overturning the court of appeals ruling.

Saying that the guidelines of evaluating the evidence by a clear and convincing standard do not have the effect of law, the court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not replace the mandate of Washington state law requiring that the best interests of the child be paramount.

“Even where there is no showing of present parental unfitness … the court may take into consideration emotional and psychological damage from prior unfitness. Moreover, in the case before us, the court is entitled to examine the lack of a bond to the parent and the presence of a bond to the children’s grandmother, who has been their parent figure for most of their lives.”

The court also noted that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, placement with a grandmother, even a non-Indian, is contemplated as appropriate.

The justices quoted the trial lawyer who said that “transferring custody to (the mother) would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children.”
The high court also held that there is no need for an expert witness to have special knowledge of Indian life if the testimony does not inject cultural bias or subjectivity into the proceedings.
.

Does the ICWA Serve Children’s or Government’s Welfare?

 Comments Off on Does the ICWA Serve Children’s or Government’s Welfare?
May 072010
 

The following is excerpted from a letter written five years ago to Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and other members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs by a foster mother. Senator Campbell never responded. This letter, and lack of response, mirror the frustrations and despair of parents, foster parents, extended family, and adoptive parents all over the United States:

Senator Campbell,

We are white foster parents to an Indian child who is just over 3 1/2 years old. He has been in our home since he was 18 months old, over 2 years. His birth mother, a member of an Indian tribe, voluntarily placed him in foster care with county Social Services in December 1997.

In January 2000 the tribe moved to take jurisdiction of the case because the county had filed for termination of parental rights. The Tribal Chairman wrote the county in late October 1999 suggesting that the tribe would prefer that the county seek long term foster care for the child rather than termination and adoption. The county, because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, was unable to meet the tribe’s request. It was only then that the tribe filed its motion to have jurisdiction transferred.

In the county DSS case file are at least two psychological profiles that indicate the child’s interests are best served by remaining in a stable, familiar environment. There are also psychological reports that indicate that contact between the child and his mother are harmful to the child, that the birth mother has reached a developmental “ceiling” of around 9 -12 years of age, and that she’ll never be able to care for the child (The Tribal Court has ordered that visitation between the child and his birth mother resume).

We understand the importance of the Indian Child Welfare Act. However, we have a very difficult time understanding how the Act is benefiting this child. As it stands, because of the Act, he’s about to lose his home, his family, his stability, his security. He sees a speech therapist twice weekly, an occupational therapist twice weekly and a mental health therapist bi-weekly. Tribal Social Services, if it can’t find an Indian home willing to take this special needs child for the next 15 years, will begin looking for a series of short-term placements. Do you really believe that this is in his best interest? To be shuffled from foster home to foster home to foster home for the next 15 years?
.

What is a Qualified Expert Witness?

 Comments Off on What is a Qualified Expert Witness?
May 052010
 

.
Qualified Expert Witness:

According to Chief Judge-Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Court, Director-Northern Plains Tribal Judicial Institute-University of North Dakota Law School*, three stages of ICWA contain a requirement of qualified expert testimony to support state court action – foster care placement, termination of parental rights and deviating from the foster care and adoptive placement preference due to the extraordinary needs of the child. 25 U.S.C. SS1912(e); 1912(f), BIA Guidelines, F. 3 at 67594. The failure to produced qualified expert witness testimony may vitiate any proceedings held in state court. See In re. K.H., 981 P.2d. 1190 (Mont. 1999); Doty-Jabbar v. Dallas County, 19 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App. 5th Dist. 2000). The ICWA does not define, “Qualified Expert Witness.”

However, IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF H.M.O. , No. 97-262, MT 175, (1998), it is stated “the Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings (the Guidelines)”, defines expert witnesses for ICWA purposes. Matter of M.E.M. (1981), 195 Mont. 329, 336, 635 P.2d 1313, 1318.

The Guidelines: D.4. Qualified Expert Witnesses

(a) Removal of an Indian child from his or her family must be based on competent testimony from one or more experts qualified to speak specifically to the issue of whether continued custody by the parents or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious physical or emotional damage to the child.

(b) Persons with the following characteristics are most likely to meet the requirements for a qualified expert witness for purposes of Indian child custody proceedings:

(i) A member of the Indian child’s tribe who is recognized by the tribal community as knowledgeable in tribal customs as they pertain to family organization and childbearing practices.

(ii) A lay expert witness having substantial experience in the delivery of child and family services to Indians, and extensive knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and childbearing practices within the Indian child’s tribe.

(iii) A professional person having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her specialty.

44 Fed.Reg. 67584, 67593 (1979).

Despite the third category, H.M.O goes on to say:

33…” courts have held that social workers must have qualifications beyond those of the normal social worker to be qualified as experts for the purposes of the ICWA. See, e.g., In re Elliott (Mich. Ct. App. 1996), 554 N.W.2d 32, 37 (citation omitted); Matter of N.L. (Okla. 1988), 754 P.2d 863, 868 (citations omitted). Those courts based their conclusions on the legislative history of the ICWA which requires “expertise beyond the normal social worker qualifications.” See In re Elliott, 554 N.W.2d at 37 (citation omitted); Matter of N.L., 754 P.2d at 868 (citations omitted); see also House Report for the Indian Child Welfare Act, H.R. 1386, 95 Cong., 2d Sess. 22, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7545. Based on these cases and legislative history, we hold that a social worker must possess expertise beyond that of the normal social worker to satisfy the qualified expert witness requirement of 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f).

34 As discussed above, Jackman’s report contains no substantive information regarding her qualifications and experience other than that she was a social worker employed by the Department. On the basis of the record before us, we hold that the District Court abused its discretion in concluding that Jackman was a qualified expert witness for ICWA purposes.

QUESTIONS:

If a child is 1/2 Hispanic and has been raised in a Hispanic community, speaking Spanish, does the prevailing social and cultural standards of the tribal community still take precedence in the placement of that child?

What if the child is 9/10 tribal, but his parents simply chose to raise him in an alternate community with alternate standards and customs?

What is the “tribal community?” If the child lives in an inner city tribal Community, would that then be the child’s tribal community? Does an inner city tribal community have the same customs, cultural standards and child rearing practices as a closed reservation does?

Wouldn’t a witness be more qualified and expert in the well being of the child if the witness understood the community in which the child has been raised and the community within which the family exists, rather than the community in which the tribe exists?

Who is the Expert Witness testifying for?
.

Iowa Supreme Court Tossed “Indian Child” Definition

 Comments Off on Iowa Supreme Court Tossed “Indian Child” Definition
May 032010
 

.
From:

Jennifer Delgado – The Daily Iowan
Issue date: 12/11/07 Section: Metro

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Nov. 30 (2007) that the state’s definition of an “Indian child” is an ethnic classification breaking the 14th Amendment equal-protection clauses in both state and federal Constitutions.

In the future, Iowa will have to come up with a new definition of what constitutes an “Indian child” – one that could possibly be based on tribal membership, UI law Professor Ann Estin said.

The decision comes after a custody case that began in Woodbury County, Iowa, involving two children born in Sioux City. The state removed the children from their home because of their parents’ record of substance abuse. Their mother is a member of the Winnebago tribe; their father is white.

The Winnebago tribe, located in northeastern Nebraska, tried to intervene in the custody proceedings, claiming the children fit the definition of “Indian child” under Iowa law and should be returned to the tribe. But because of this new ruling, the tribe cannot legally get involved in the custody battle.

In the Winnebago tribe, children of members are only eligible for membership if they have at least one-fourth degree Winnebago blood – the two children are only one-eighth degree.

In 2004, the Winnebago tribe passed a resolution stating that the offspring are seen as “children of the Winnebago tribal community” because their mother is a member.

“The Winnebago tribe tried to establish this definition, but the court won’t let it fly,” said Estin, who teaches Indian law.

According to the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, any unmarried Indian who is under the age of 18 or a child who is under 18 that an Indian tribe identifies as a child of their community. Enacted in 2003, its purpose is to clarify state procedures and policies for the federal act. Estin said she believes this ruling is not a step backwards because the federal legislation is still in place, which trumps the state legislation. The 1978 federal law is similar to the Iowa statue but includes Indians who are eligible for membership and who are biological children of a tribal member.’ Estin said a law based on ethnicity is difficult to uphold, and the Iowa statute has gone beyond the federal law.

“The biggest problem is Iowa’s definition of an Indian child is it turns on the child’s ethnicity,” she said. “If Iowa wants to revise the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, it has a clear signal from the Supreme Court that it’s going to have to have some tie to tribal membership.”
.

ICWA Case Law & other Authority

 Comments Off on ICWA Case Law & other Authority
May 012010
 

.
Cases:
Adoption of Lindsay C. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 404, 280 Cal.Rptr. 194
Doe v. Hughes, Thorness, Gantz, et al. (Alaska 1992) 838 P.2d 804
In re Alexandria Y. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1483, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 679
In re Alicia S. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 79, 76 Cal.Rprt.2d 121
In re Baby Girl A. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1611, 282 Cal.Rptr. 105
In re Brandon M. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1387, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 671
In re Bridget R. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1483, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 507
In re Charloe (Ore. 1982) 640 P.2d 608
In re Crystal K. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 655, 276 Cal.Rptr. 619
In re Crystal R. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 703, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 414.
In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App4th 828, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 742.
In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688
In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 7 Cal.Rptr. 629
In re Jonathan D. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 105, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 628.
In re Julian B. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1337, modified by 83 Cal.App.4th 935A, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 241
In re Junious M. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 786, 193 Cal.Rptr. 40
In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 285 Cal.Rptr. 507
In re Krystle D. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1778, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 132
In re Larissa G. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 505, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 16
In re Laura F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 583, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 859
In re Letitia V. v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1009, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 303
In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 648
In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 109 Cal.Rptr 2d 267
In re Matthew Z. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 545, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 343
In re Michael G. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 700, 74 Cal.Rprt.3d 642
In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 507
In re Pima County Juvenile Action (Ariz. 1981) 635 P.2d 187
In re Richard S. 54 Cal.3d 857, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 2
In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 286 Cal.Rptr. 592
In re Robert T. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 657, 246 Cal.Rptr. 168
In re Santos Y. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1274, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 692, review denied (Feb. 13, 2002)
In re Wanomi P. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 156, 264 Cal.Rptr. 623
In re William G., Jr. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 423, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 436
Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield (1989) 490 U.S. 30, L.Ed.2d 29
Morton v. Mancari (1974) 417 U.S. 535
Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State of Alaska (9th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 548
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) 436 U.S. 49
Slone v. Inyo County (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 263, 282 Cal.Rptr. 126
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Dept. of Lane County v. Shuey (Ore.1993) 850 P.2d 378

Cases (de-published or partially unpublished on ICWA issue):
In re Adam N. (2000) 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 181
In re Bettye K.(1991) 285 Cal.Rptr. 633
In re Carlos G. (1999) 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 623
In re Jacqueline L. (1995) 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 178
In re Santos Y. (2001) 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 1
In re Se.T. (2002) 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 335

Statutes and Other Authority (Specific to Indians):
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. §§1901 et seq.
Indian Child Welfare Act Regulation, 25 C.F.R. Part 23.
Indian Child Welfare Act, Legislative History, H.R. Rep. 95-1386, 95th Cong.2d Sess. 22, 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 7530.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts: Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed.Reg. 67584 (Nov. 26, 1979)
California Family Code
Section 7810 [Calif. declaration of policy, existing Indian family doctrine abrogated.]
California Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 305.5 [Transfer to Tribe after reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction.]
Section 360.6 [Calif. declaration of policy, existing Indian family doctrine abrogated.]
Section 11401(e) [AFDC-FC for Indian placements.]
Section 10553.1 [Director’s delegation agreement with Indian Tribe.]

Cal. Rules of Court
Rule 1410 – Persons present.
Rule 1412 (I) – Tribal representatives.
Rule 1439 – Indian Child Welfare Act.
Manual of Policies and Procedures, California Department of Social Services, §31-515 et seq – Indian Child Welfare Act.
Manual of Policies and Procedures, California Department of Social Services, §45-101; §45-202, §45-203. [Implementing section 11401(e).]
SDSS All County Letter No. 89-26, Procedures for Certifying Indian Blood for Children in Adoption Planning.
SDSS All County Letter No. 95-07, AFDC-FC Program Eligible Facility Requirements.
Appeal of William Stanek, 8 Indian L.Rep.5021 (April 1981)(decision of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.) [p. 3.]
.

Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

 Comments Off on Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause
Apr 292010
 

.
Contrary to the belief of those that want control over our children, the Indian Commerce Clause did not give Congress the right to enact a law giving those entities that control.

Professor Rob Natelson, Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Montana, Missoula, researched the issue in 2007. The results of his study were documented in a lead article published in vol 85 page 201 of Denver University Law Review (85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

According to Professor Natelson, “the U.S. Constitution gives Congress only limited powers, and it says nothing about legislating for “Indian child welfare.”

So what gives Congress the power to pass a law like the ICWA?

Some say the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress that power by a section in the Constitution allowing Congress to “regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes.” But is that true? Are laws like ICWA really constitutional as regulating “Commerce with the Indian Tribes?”

His answer: Absolutely not.

Professor Rob Natelson is one of the country’s top experts on the original meaning of the Constitution. He concluded that the purpose of the section giving power to Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes was to allow Congress to regulate trade between Indians and whites – no more. Foster care, adoption, parental rights, etc. were be governed by state law, not federal law.

Professor Natelson documented his findings in a lead article published in Denver University Law Review. He also examined other claimed bases for laws like the ICWA, including the “Indian trust doctrine” – and he found they didn’t have any merit, either.

“There is not much doubt on the question,” he said. “At least according the Founding Fathers, Congress had absolutely no authority to adopt the ICWA. Eventually, the courts may see their error and strike it down as unconstitutional.”

This article – and some of Professor Natelson’s other research – can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause – 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” In the Commerce Clause – 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006)
.

Mother Wins Fight Against Tribe!!

 Comments Off on Mother Wins Fight Against Tribe!!
Jul 242009
 

.
Court: Mother’s custody wishes trump those of tribe
Supreme Court rules agency can place child with non-American Indian family

By Cy Ryan (contact) Las Vegas Sun

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:07 p.m.
Beyond the Sun

* Nevada Supreme Court

CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a licensed adoption agency in Las Vegas can place an American Indian child with a family, despite the objections of the Cherokee Nation Tribe.

The court, in a unanimous decision, rejected the argument of the Cherokee Nation that the adoption procedures had to go through a tribal court instead of a state district court.

Deziray G., a 23-year-old registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation, gave birth to a son at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas on Jan. 10 2007. Two weeks later she relinquished her parental rights to a licensed adoption and child placement agency, A Child’s Dream of Nevada.

Deziray wanted her child placed with a non-American Indian family identified only as “Christine and John.”

District Judge Gerald Hardcastle signed the order relinquishing the rights of the mother.

The adoption agency also started action to terminate the parental rights of the apparent father, whose paternity was not established.

The Cherokee Nation, based in Oklahoma, filed suit in Reno asking to intervene in the case. During the two-year battle, the child has been with the family favored by the child’s mother.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision Wednesday, ruled the wishes of the mother should be considered over a federal law that favors keeping Indian families together.

Federal law sets forth the cases where a tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters. The Supreme Court said the federal law is to protect American Indian children, families and tribes “from unnecessary and unwarranted separation.”

But the Supreme Court said Congress also intended to honor the desire of the parents of the child in adoption decisions.

In this case, Deziray, although a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, said she did not live on the Cherokee Nation reservation. And in her statement to the district court, she opposed any attempt to transfer jurisdiction in the case to the tribal court.

The Cherokee Nation argued that the child’s maternal grandmother was willing to be a foster parent.

The Supreme Court said there was good cause for the district court to deviate from the adoption framework in the federal law.

Although the case started in the district court in Las Vegas, it ended up in the court in Reno where District Judge Deborah Schumacher made the decision to back the wishes of the mother in the adoption dispute.
.

Definition of Indian Child Welfare Act

 Comments Off on Definition of Indian Child Welfare Act
Jul 042009
 

.
To all the Congressmen and State legislators that believe the Indian Child Welfare Act is a “no-brainer” good thing:

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is

1) Making it harder for families of heritage to choose to keep their children off the reservation.

2) Selling out my children and grandchildren to tribal government.

3) An anti-family, pro-government justification for the taking of children for the sole purpose of maintaining the power a select group has come to enjoy.

And no – my birth children have never been in subjected to any custody battle. However, the potential was there if my husband and I should pass away. Now, my husband has passed, and I’m all that’s left to keep them out of the hands of tribal government,

.

Another Baby Dies.

 Comments Off on Another Baby Dies.
Jun 282009
 

.
The house where 9-month-old Tila died on June 21, 2009, was filthy. There were no clean dishes, and alcohol bottles and cans were strewn throughout. Two other children, dirty diapers sagging, were removed from the home.

23-year old Lance Ballinger was taken into custody. He has been charged with two counts of felony domestic assault, four counts of neglect of a child, five counts of child endangerment and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in a criminal complaint filed in Mille Lacs County District Court on Thursday, June 25. These counts included the infant as well as two other kids who were at Ballinger’s house.

But he hasn’t been charged with murder yet. Mille Lacs Tribal Police Department is the lead agency investigating the death of the child.

Unbelievably, Ballinger was released from Mille Lacs County Jail just the day before Tila died – on Saturday, June 20. He had served 52 days for violating a domestic abuse/no contact order, driving under the influence and domestic assault.

Not even 24 hours later, at 5:45 a.m. on Sunday, June 21, Tila Friend-Ballinger was reported non-responsive.

Her mother, Kelly Friend, said she found the baby in Ballinger’s bed, with a bruise on her forehead, at around 5 a.m. Ballinger was passed out. Friend says that there was no bruise when she left her with Ballinger around midnight.

A preliminary breath test given to Ballinger at 8:01 a.m. gave a reading of .201.

Okay, so this dumb mother left her infant at midnight with a drunk who just got out of jail for having beat her in the past – a drunk who had a no-contact order in relation to her. The guy is scum – but so, it appears, might have been the slow-witted mother.

Apparently – this guy had assaulted Tila in November as well, when she was only 2-months-old. On November 5th, the baby was airlifted to North Memorial Medical Center with head injuries.

Air-lifted with head injuries! And the mother went and dropped her off at this guy’s house as soon as he got out of jail!!

In fact, the mother had initially lied to the police about that – saying the baby had gotten hurt when another little girl had pulled her off the couch. Later she said she had dropped her daughter while trying to break up a fight between her brother and Ballinger. A third story, form Ballinger’s father, was that his son had dropped the baby during an argument with Friend.

I’m guessing the third story was probably the real one – and this dumb mother is too “love” struck – or sickeningly dependent- to protect her child from this guy! Instead, time and again she protects HIM against the world.

Anyway, Mille Lacs County Attorney’s Office DECLINED charges on March 10, 2009. They said they couldn’t press charges because “witnesses gave conflicting stories, and it was possible that the injuries were accidental.” They also said that not all of the witnesses could be found until this week.

Now, new charges have been filed on that case, because on Monday, June 22, Friend finally decided that it was time to tell “the whole story about what had happened” on Nov. 5. She said Ballinger was fighting with her brother and, while she was holding the baby, pushed her down. Then he grabbed Tila from her and dropped her again. Friend’s brother later confirmed that story. (I guess that must be the witness they couldn’t find earlier)

But if that wasn’t enough, in 2008 Friends had reported that while she was still pregnant, Ballinger had slugged her in the stomach and said ‘he would rather see it dead than her having it.’ And yet, she still hangs with the guy.

All of that, and yet there are people that write letters to the paper such as this one:

“WHY IS IT EVERY TIME A BAND MEMBER IS GOING THROUGH STUFF LIKE THIS THEY HAVE TO BE BASHED? I’VE KNOWN LANCE ALL HIS LIFE AND HE IS A GREAT FATHER TO HIS CHILDREN! HE DIDN’T DESERVE TO SIT IN JAIL ON THE DAY THEY BURIED HIS DAUGHTER, “YOU’S HAVE NO HEART”! WHAT SO EVER, CAN YOU IMAGION WHAT HE’S GOING THROUGH? COME ON PEOPLE QUIT LABELING OUR PEOPLE, YOUS DONT UINDERSTAND THE CREATORS REASON, AND NEITHER DO I. THIS WEIGHS ALOT ON OUR HEARTS THAT THINGS HAPPEN. THE MAN DON’T NEED YOUR INPUT RIGHT NOW, PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE, I HAVE AND IT DON’T FEEL GOOD AT ALL. ALL I HAVE TO COMMENT ON HERE IS THE LOVE AND RESPECT I HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANCE AND KELLY SO PEOPLE PLEASE DONT CAUSE ANYMORE “GREIF“! ”
http://www.millelacsmessenger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31536:father-charged-with-assault-neglect&catid=34:current-news&Itemid=76
of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Here you have an opposite view of the guy –

“…look at losers myspace profile its not private he is seen drinking a good dad the baby has a joint in his mouth. Dont bring the creator into this he has nothing to do with it and dont kid your self if he was a good dd he wouldnt be in and out of jail; for bieng a drunk and beating kelly and where was kellys mom kids having kids geeez. sounds like an uncharged case of statutory rape . you need to quit defending criminals thats the problem on the rez you feel bvad for the people who screw everyone over screw lance where is justice for the baby? the guy was out for like 6 hours then he was drunk…”

It’s time Everyone woke up. What is happening in many communities is an epidemic of adults with FASD raising children with FASD, who then raise children with FASD.

Face the truth and do something about it.

The Indian Child Welfare Act is a crime – mandating that children are better off under these conditions than in safe, stable homes. One social worker told us that had my husband’s grandchildren been white or black, they would have been removed from their parents much earlier. But because they were of tribal heritage, they were left to suffer. It’s about time an attorney made a case against ICWA by demanding Equal Protection for these children.

“The mother reported that Ballinger hit her in the abdomen and said ‘he would rather see it dead than her having it.’ She said she believed he was attempting to harm the unborn child.”

Tribal officials that lobby in Wash. DC, telling congressmen that kids are better off suffering under these conditions rather then being placed in safe, loving homes (even if they are “non-tribal”) are also to blame, along with both parents.

The Indian Child Welfare Act and the phony mindset that goes with it is a crime. Tribal leaders are more interested in money per head than in the welfare of children.
.

States Not Complying with ICWA – for Good Reason

 Comments Off on States Not Complying with ICWA – for Good Reason
Jun 152009
 

.
The Second Appellate Court in California issued a partially published opinion in Justin L. v. Superior Court, and stated in part;

“We are growing weary of appeals in which the only error is theDepartment’s
failure to comply with ICWA. (See In re I.G. (2005) 133Cal.App.4th 1246,
1254-1255 [14 published opinions in 2002 through 2005, and72 unpublished cases
statewide in 2005 alone reversing in whole or in part fornoncompliance with
ICWA].) Remand for the limited purpose of the ICWAcompliance is all too common.
(Ibid.) ICWA’s requirements are not new. Yetthe prevalence of inadequate notice
remains disturbingly high.”

Perhaps compliance is difficult because the law itself is unjust, and caring people don’t like to see children subjected to not only unjust, but dangerous law.

And under the single criterion that a home be ICWA eligable, kids are continually being placed into horrible situations with the blessing of both the federal and tribal governments.

And not just kids of tribal heritage – but children of every heritage, because a child doesn’t need to be 100% tribal to for a tribe to have jurisdiction over them through ICWA. Most tribes require only 1/4 blood quantum, meaning the child has an even greater heritage somewhere else. Some tribes require even less to claim a child. For example, a child in Texas has less than 2% tribal heritage, but the tribe is trying to claim him.

The law itself is a crime, and as long as it stays that way, there will be difficulty in getting compassionate people to comply.
.

Two more families ask for help

 Comments Off on Two more families ask for help
Jun 082009
 

.
We recieved two more letters this last week asking for help.

One is from an aunt of an enrollable child. The other is a foster / pre-adoptive home. They both need lots of prayer and good legal advice.

I am still having trouble finding time to update our website with letters. I don’t think I’ve updated it in a year. But that doesn’t mean the letters have stopped coming. It just means I’m overwhelmed with the children in my home, and trying to provide for everyone.

The problems with ICWa continue to exist and are hurting children across the country.

I pray for time to update the many letters we’ve recieved.
.

Reality of Taking in Kids With FAS

 Comments Off on Reality of Taking in Kids With FAS
Jun 052009
 

.
To the Foster and Adoptive Parents who are loving and in love with babies exposed to alcohol:

Yes, all children need love and being loved does make a huge difference in the life of every human being.

However, if you have other children in your home, you need to think this through very carefully. Especially if the children are around the same age.

All the love you can give the child affected by alcohol and drugs will not necessarily erase all the damage done in utero. Yes, we can pray and God does heal. But God is also sovereign and has the right to decide to allow some afflictions to continue and exist.

I had been raising four affected children for the last 13 years, along with five of my birth children. The two oldest have become adults and are no longer in the home. The two that were babies when I recieved them are still in the home.

I do believe the oldest of the four was a terrible, terrible influence on several of my children. Looking back, remembering how he was giving the younger boys weed when they were only 10 and 11 years old while at the same time appearing to be so charming and cooperative – one can see now that he was a master at being two different people.

People without a conscience have the ability to be appear completely charming and innocent because they have no conscience or guilt.

I was talking to someone the other day and began remembering all the different things; not just drug and alcohol abuse, but sexual issues, lying, stealing, conning, attempting to break into someone’s home, trashing another home, and much more. We had been fighting his worst behavior for seven or more years, but kept giving him more chances – keeping him in the home and around other children – because he was so convincing about being sorry or even innocent. There were also many things I didn’t find out about until much later.

Now I am looking around and seeing the fruit of that 13 years of work. Not only have the two oldest returned to their birth families and are abusing drugs and alcohol, (the oldest to the worst degree, as if he had never been raised any other way) I am also expriencing deep issues with most of my birth children.

Remember that group called Al-anon? That group exists because of the universal emotional hardship of living with someone that is an alcoholic. Living with and loving a person that is dishonest, manipulative and has the ability to make you believe that everything wrong is your fault takes a huge emotional toll.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that your birth children will not be affected by living with someone that has fetal alcohol issues. Children with fetal alcohol struggle with understanding cause and effect. They tend to think of things in terms of immediate gratification, are very self-oriented, and they frequently lack what we call a conscience.

I am now left wondering if what one pastor had told me is true – that I sinned when I took in extra children and neglected my own.

I had one of the two boys that are still in my home taken to a facility two nights ago, and a doctor there is recommending and in-patient treatment for him. We are still waiting to see if Medicaid will pay for it. I might have to bring him home again tonight if we don’t get a response from Medicaid today. If Medicaid doesn’t okay the treatment, I’m not sure what my next step will be. I’ve got to begin thinking about my two birth children who are also still home and start making them a priority – for the first time.
.

ICWA steals adoption option from Young Mother

 Comments Off on ICWA steals adoption option from Young Mother
May 282009
 

.
My teenager is pregnant. Freshly graduated from high school, she had planned to go on to college in the fall. There is no argument, from her or me, that she made plenty of foolish decisions over the winter. But here we are, and what do we do now.

We love children, and we love this child. We won’t allow it to be hurt in any way. Abortion isn’t even a consideration. It’s not gonna happen.

But neither is adoption an option. The Indian Child Welfare Act would kick in if we tried it. But it would be over my dead body, literally, that I sit back and allow the tribe to have anything to do with the care and custody of my grandchild.

Too many childen on the reservation, under the “care” of tribal governments, are being raised amid poverty, violence, and alcohol, drug & sexual abuse. Tribal leaders claim that this is the best interest of the child. Bull.

The only ones benefiting from this set up are the tribal leaders themselves – and the money and power they have aquired by having a certain number of tribal members under their thumbs.

Quit blaming rotten reservation life on what happened 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 days ago to this or that tribe or tribal member. It has to do with adults making rotten choices, same as my daughter (and I) have done. Plain and simple, everyone needs to grow up and take responsiblity for their lousy lives. And quit subjecting innocent children to the garbage they’re being subjected to.

We are faced then with only one choice – my daughter keeps custody and lets go of many the plans she had for the future, or at the very least, greatly adjusts those plans.

I will do all that I can to help her get through some type of schooling and care for her child. If I have to take physical care of my grandchild, I will do it without going to court for legal custody. I’ve seen too many grandparents robbed of their grandchildren by the tribe to want to mess with it.

‘

Another Win Against ICWA

 Comments Off on Another Win Against ICWA
May 152009
 

.
A child and his family won in court at 2 pm Friday May 8, 2009. The child won the right to be adopted by the family his birth parents had chosen. The tribe lost. Praise God.

The child’s grandmother by birth wrote, “Thanks to everyone for all the prayers and support during the past two years. It has been quite the battle and I know this is but one small victory over ICWA. Thanks again.”

This may seem like a small victory to this humble grandmother, but for the child, it is a huge victory. Again, Praise God.
.

ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies

 Comments Off on ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies
Apr 132009
 

.
We get at least three letters a month at http://www.CAICW.org from families that need help. The Indian Child Welfare Act is hurting them and their kids. But we don’t have much for staff at CAICW. It’s a volunteer org made up of busy parents. We care, we pray, we encourage, we tell our stories. We try to connect people that can help each other.

But the Tribes have the money and attorneys. Tribal government leaders want our children to bolster their memberships, bring them more money, and help them to keep their little kingdoms. They don’t really care about what’s good and right for our kids. All our kids are to them is warm bodies that bring federal dollars.

And what would the BIA be if all tribal members left the tribal system? The BIA doesn’t want to lose its purpose – and people that work for the BIA don’t want to lose their government jobs.

Lord Please help us. It’s a tribal industry and our kids are pawns in a game.
.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three

 Comments Off on Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three
Jan 032009
 

.
7. Finally, if tribal membership is a political rather than racial designation, (as argued) than is it constitutional for the definition of an Indian child to include “enrollable” children, rather than “enrolled” children?

25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions: (4) ”Indian child” means any unmarried
person who is under age eighteen and is either:
(1) member of an Indian tribe or
(2) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of
a member of an Indian tribe;

However;

a) Tribal governments have been given the right as sovereign entities to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights.

b) ICWA does not give Indian children or their legal guardians the choice whether to accept political membership in the tribe. Legal guardians have the right to make that choice for their children, not governments. (ftn11)

c) Non-member relatives are being told that these children are now members of an entity that the family has had no past political, social or cultural relationship with.

d) So IS it then the blood relationship that determines membership? Bridget R., (ftn6) stated, “If 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. Only children who are racially Indians face this possibility.” Isn’t that then an unconstitutional race-based classification?

e) Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what the State would normally determine to be an unfit home on the basis of tribal government claims that European values don’t apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (ftn5)

f) Even with significant relationship with Indian tribal culture, forced application of ICWA runs afoul of the Constitution in three ways: (1) it impermissibly intrudes upon a power ordinarily reserved to the states, (2) it improperly interferes with Indian children’s fundamental due process rights; and (3) on the sole basis of race, it deprives them of equal opportunities to be adopted that are available to non-Indian children.

PLEASE PRESS YOUR LEGISLATORS TO CHANGE ICWA LAW

.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries