We Won!!

 Comments Off on We Won!!
Sep 292011
 

It’s been a long and difficult two years, but God is good and faithful.  Thank you for your prayers and support. Also thank you for telling us about [the attorney]. We will forever be indebted.

Where do I start? As you probably remember our story started with a baby girl born out of wedlock to an Indian father and Caucasian mother. The mother chose us to adopt (non-native) and the father agreed at the time. Now to bring you up to speed since our last letter Nov ’09. We waited until the bio-father was out of jail in hopes to meet with him and his family about the adoption. It was our understanding that the only reason the tribe intervened in November ’09 was because they believed the paternal family wanted to adopt her and that the father changed his mind. We felt that waiting was our only option because our attorney at the time was not supportive of us. He felt that we would never win regardless of what we did. We wanted our attorney at the time to co-counsel with [the attorney], but our attorney was very negative, made it sound like it was going to cost us thousands and it would all be a waste of time anyways. We didn’t believe that so like I said we waited. Eight months later we met with the father and family. They all agreed to the adoption. After that conversation we believed we would be able to adopt without the tribe interfering (they had originally released us to adopt).  So we hired a new attorney to handle the adoption. We were talking with the father and hoping to finalize in Feb 2011. In Dec ’09 we had asked the father to come for a Christmas visit. He accepted. But the day arrived and he didn’t show up, no call or anything. The next thing we know our attorney receives a letter from the tribe that stated that the father came into the tribal attorney’s office refusing to agree to the adoption and the tribe was intervening. Unfortunately, our case was one of our attorney’s last cases because he was retiring. So needless to say we had to find a new attorney to take our now contested case. We were blessed to find ————. She was willing to co-counsel with [the attorney] and they made an awesome team. Both of them fight for the child’s rights with honesty and dignity. They made our case bullet proof and we won… The tribe still has 42 days to appeal the decision, but —– talked to the tribal attorney and he said that he is recommending that the tribe DOES NOT intervene. Like I said our attorneys made our case bullet proof so it would be unlikely for the tribe to win even in the Supreme Court. We will wait out the 42 days and finalize the adoption after [in] October…

[We] are still in a state of shock or disbelief. Maybe it will hit us when we sign the final papers.

Again, thank you for all of your support and prayers. We truly believe that we would not be holding our precious forever daughter without your guidance to the right attorney, your encouragement and your website to educate us. We have directed others to your website and have been able to educate others because of it. We were surprised how many people including Natives that are not aware of ICWA.

As I have promised in the past I will do what I can to help support you and the people you help as soon as this is over.

Many blessings,

CONGRATULATIONS for Successful Adoptions!

 Comments Off on CONGRATULATIONS for Successful Adoptions!
Sep 292011
 

TO FIVE WONDERFUL FAMILIES –

Who in the last two months have either successfully completed their adoptions or will be completing them shortly –

To the three awesome families in Texas, one in California, and the beautiful family in Idaho – CONGRATULATIONS!

Please also give a very special thanks to a wonderful attorney who ministered for most of these children in very wise and beneficial ways – as well as Johnston Moore and Andy Reum, two board members who were willing and available to speak to and encourage a couple of the families.

AND a VERY SPECIAL THANKS – To all those who have been praying faithfully for these families as well as the many others who contact us!! God Bless all you awesome prayer warriors!

Fighting ICWA? We are, too. Families Helping Each Other

 Comments Off on Fighting ICWA? We are, too. Families Helping Each Other
Nov 132010
 

The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW) is an advocate for  

Ebay's 'Mission Fish' - "Sell your Stuff and Support our Cause."

~ Support CAICW on Ebay ~

 children and families hurt by the Indian Child Welfare Act, an example    of misguided federal Indian policy.

There are Four things you can do today to help:


First, if you haven’t already, sign the petition on CAICW’s Cause page. 

CAICW will be taking it with to DC in January, and it will help show Congressmen that this is an important issue to many!


Second, donate through MissionFish whenever you use Ebay.  The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare is Registered with MissionFish – a service through Ebay that helps nonprofits fundraise while buying and selling on ~ eBay.  Sellers can give part of their proceeds to a favorite nonprofit, and nonprofits can raise funds by selling on eBay too. Direct donations from eBay users can also be given through a ‘Donate Now’ feature, which lets anyone with a PayPal account donate right away without buying or selling anything.
http://donations.ebay.com/charity/charity.jsp?NP_ID=39005


Third, CAICW is sending out a snail mail newsletter this week. It includes anonymous excerpts from four letters families have written, information about the DC trip, a paper copy of the petition for you to share with non-internet friends, and potential draft legislation to share with your newly elected state legislators. If you would like a copy, please contact CAICW with your snail address. administrator@caicw.org

Fourth, Look for Draft legislation that you can bring to your State Legislator for the next session on the CAICW website: caicw.org ~ and bring it to them!  Hurry; they are putting together their plans for legislation right now!

Finally – for more information and to connect with other families who are struggling against ICWA, visit the CAICW FaceBook ‘Page:  http://facebook.com/fbCAICW.org  


Thank you so much for your support! God Bless you!
.

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, 2002
By 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.
.

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.”
.

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,

.

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.
.