Dying In Indian Country

 Comments Off on Dying In Indian Country
Oct 212010
 

.
Roland J. Morris Sr. kept his tribal culture at heart as he taught his children about wild ricing, hunting, fishing, family history and some Ojibwa language. He did this, despite having lost all trust in the reservation system. He’d watched too many family members die tragic, violent deaths and had come to believe that current federal Indian policy and the reservation system itself was responsible.

Tribal leaders tell the public that the reservation system must be maintained or all will be lost. They claim that no one understands Indians, and this system has to be preserved as the only viable way for tribal members to exist in happiness. While they are saying this, violence, crime, child neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, and Fetal Alcohol effects are epidemic on the reservations. Further, at the hands of their own governments, tribal members experience denial of civil rights: freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. They experience cohortion, manipulation, cronyism, nepotism, criminal fraud, ballot box stuffing and have even been robbed of their own children.

We are all aware this is happening, but refuse to admit out loud. For some reason, it’s much easier to blame white America, history, and poverty for the problems.

Need a close-to-home example of how liberal, socialist policies within our government currently affect U.S. citizens?  Read Roland Morris’s story. Read about his family – a beautiful 16-year-old niece hanging herself in a closet, another dying of a drug overdose in a public bathroom, a brother stabbed to death on the reservation, a four-yr-old left alone for a whole night at an inner city park, a two-yr old beaten to death by his mother, and more – and find out why this tribal elder traveled to DC over and over again to fight tribal sovereignty and the well-compensated Congressmen who support it.

Dying in Indian Country – A Family Story – http://dyinginindiancountry.blogspot.com/
.

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.”

.

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

.

Are Indians Protected by the Constitution?

 Comments Off on Are Indians Protected by the Constitution?
Dec 302008
 

.
Reflections on the Chocktaw Decision (1998) (emphasis by Blog author)
By Dr. William Allen

In a major decision delivered earlier this month, the Supreme Court held that Indian parents have no rights over their offspring that the federal courts will protect. The case was Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, and considering its significance, it is shocking how few people have paid attention to it.

The facts of the case are uncomplicated. The mother of twins, with the consent of their natural father, elected to give birth to her children two hundred miles away from the Indian reservation where she lives. The reason: She preferred to have her children adopted off the reservation. She found willing adoptive parents in Orrey and Vivian Holyfield. Acting in concert, the natural parents arranged for the birth of the twins, respected the prescribed procedures of the law as far as they were known, and effectuated the adoption.

The case makes no suggestion of any exchange of money or other kind of consideration. The natural parents were not bribed, the children were not sold. Apparently the natural mother and father were acting on their judgment about the best interests of their children. The matter is analogous to the Mexican mother who exerts herself to give birth on American soil in order to give her child the advantage of United States citizenship.

To the untrained eye there would be nothing here to go to court about. Though unmarried, the mother and father agreed. They found willing adoptive parents. And they followed the laws applicable to U.S. citizens.

The mere fact that they were Indians, however, robbed the parents of their rights.

Standing between the wishes of the parents and the interests of the twins is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Congress’s aim in the act was to preserve the racial integrity of Indian tribes in general and the cultural integrity of particular tribes. Congress responded to a legitimate problem—namely, how to halt the wholesale removal (especially the involuntary removal) of Indian children from tribes. But Congress’s solution came at the cost of closing state courthouses—and even federal courts if the majority on the Court is to be believed—to Indian parents and children.

In the Court’s interpretation, the Indian Child Welfare Act gives a tribe veto power over the wishes of both parents and children in custody cases.

Although Congress mandated in the law that the wishes of parents and children should be considered, and that decisions be made in the best interests of children, the act’s lodging of final authority in tribal courts, which are not even reviewable in federal courts, means that those mandates of Congress are rather prayers than orders.

How could Congress justify this closure of the federal courts to Indians? The Choctaw tribe, in its brief to the Supreme Court, sought to couch the denial of court access in the familiar language of affirmative action: “. . . . if a jurisdictional holding occasionally results in denying an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non-Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian is justified because it is intended to benefit the class of which he is a member.”

Group benefits; individual penalties—that is the recurring lesson of state-sanctioned racial preferences, benign or malign. The question is, why does the Supreme Court extend to Congress a benefit of the doubt on this affirmative action program in the first place? That is where the ambiguities of Indian law come into play.

To start, Indian law is a sub-category of American law, treated neither by the Court nor by Congress as fully comprehended within American law. Indian tribes are called “dependent sovereigns,” meaning that Congress can deal with them in their corporate capacities without regard to the effects of its actions on Indian individuals.

The ambiguity enters when one notes that Indian persons, as opposed to tribes, are also citizens of the United States—paying our taxes, participating in our elections, and defending our freedom. When, therefore, Congress and the Court abandon these brothers and sisters of our equal liberty to the rule of their tribes, Congress and the Court (and we through them) are actually withdrawing certain of the guarantees we otherwise promise and certainly expect for ourselves.

In the Mississippi case these questions of constitutional status did not arise, for the Court rightly limited itself to statutory interpretation. No constitutional questions were raised in the arguments for the case, although that may only reflect the fact that the parents were not represented there. If the Supreme Court had considered the constitutional questions involved, the decision might have been very different. A consideration of the constitutional questions involved may well have produced a Yoder-like decision, reaffirming a “charter of rights for parents.”

Yoder, of course, was the 1972 case that defended the right of the Amish community to be different by defending the right of Amish parents to guide the religious upbringing of their children. There the Court ruled that Amish parents could not be compelled to send their children to high schools because of the devastating effects such a practice would have on Amish culture. Yoder shows us how we can preserve people’s distinct cultures and ways of life by means of defending the individual rights of parents and children.

The rights of all Americans are implicated in the denial of rights to Indian parents sanctioned in Choctaw. The notion of truly sovereign tribes connected to the United States by treaty rights became untenable from the moment Indians became citizens. The granting of citizenship to Indians interested every other American in the limitations and privileges of Indian citizenship.

If American citizenship per se poses no limitation on the power of Congress to legislate away the rights of Indians, we must sooner or later expect other citizens to be brought no less surely under the so-called “plenary power” of Congress. Our Indian brothers and sisters cannot defer to the “great white father” without making the rest of us equally vulnerable. The problem highlighted by enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act illustrates the foolishness of preserving “independent” tribes within “subordinate” states. We were better off when the tribes were entirely and truly sovereign.

[1] Published in the Okanogan County Chronicle (Omak, WA), August 2, 1998.
.

THE NEW RACISM: William B. Allen’s thoughts on ICWA –

 Comments Off on THE NEW RACISM: William B. Allen’s thoughts on ICWA –
Dec 272008
 

.
Excerpt from Dr. William Allen’s article “The New Racism.” (emphasis is Blog Author’s)

Dr. Allen is a Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science; Michigan State University as well as the former Chairman, United States Commission on Civil Rights, August 8, 1988 to October 23, 1989

“…while Congress has the power to alter Indian law and practice, it also has the power to abstain from doing so. In short, Congress may treat Indians just as it pleases, and without regard to the ordinary protections other Americans take for granted. Nor has Congress failed to follow up on this opportunity.

In the very year the ICRA was ruled to be unenforceable in federal courts, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), in which Congress made explicit the tacit premise of all our Indian policy. An Indian is as such not permitted to assert rights of American citizenship, even while Indians are almost universally admitted to citizenship whether on or off reservations. Indians vote in all of our elections; they pay our federal taxes; and they defend our liberties in the country’s wars. Indeed, Indians are dramatically subjected to the obligations of citizenship even in one case in which certain other citizens are exempted: they must pay social security taxes. Congress specifically exempted the “selfsufficient” and “independent” Amish from the need to pay social security—a privilege Indians lack altogether.

In the ICWA the Indian individual, parent and child, is subordinated to the cultural identity of the tribe. By assigning jurisdiction in child custody cases to tribal courts, whether the child and/or parent is on or off the reservation and despite their dissent in most meaningful cases, the Congress has effectively ordered that Indian children be placed specifically with regard to their race and, more importantly, that state courts in particular close their doors to Indian suitors. Congress’s express interest in preserving the integrity of Indian tribes has been executed in such a way as to destroy the integrity of individual Indians. Now is the time to repeat: Indians are almost universally American citizens. Accordingly, what this exercise of power by Congress means is that Congress is free to dispose of the persons and properties of citizens entirely on the basis of race, and without the customary safeguards of-the Constitution.

How came Congress to exercise such power over the American Indian? In a word: treaty relations! One might rightly inquire how it can be possible for the government of a free society to deal with its own citizens (and only some of them at that) by means of treaty—thereby escaping the obligation to assure the equal protection of the laws. Congress has never attempted to answer that question, preferring to hide behind the fiction that treaties executed before Indians became citizens remain in effect after they are citizens. We will not be fooled by that device, however, for we recognize that if treaty obligations persist despite and indeed at the expense of citizenship, then there is no reason assignable why Congress may not enter into treaties with any of its citizens, suitably defined in terms of group affiliation (the most accessible of which is race).

The power Congress exercises threatens not only the Indian, therefore, but every American; for it reveals a device whereby to elude the limitations of the Constitution. Given the rapid Lebanonization of American society that has been inspired by policies of racial preference, the prospect is frightening indeed. It remains now but to answer whether this development is innocent—a by-blcw stumbled across by despotic souls ever ready to aggrandize themselves?

Far from it, it is rather the natural fulfillment of that design which was originally aimed not only at the Indian but at all the United States. The architect of American Indian policy was the selfsame architect of the positive good school of slavery, and the theoretical argument that republican government was inefficacious and should be replaced by government on the model of rationally distinguished interests or cultures engaging in mutual bargaining for the sake of their respective members. The affirmative action regime is not new; it was invented in the 19th century. The Indian policy is only the most advanced stage of the affirmative action regime a glimpse of the future that awaits us.

The 1824 Secretary of War who invented the Bureau of Indian Affairs by his own fiat, and laid out the guidelines of a government serving as a “great father,” in fact bequeathed to us what today we falsely recognize as the “new racism.” It is, in fact, the racism of yesteryear, rejecting in its principle, as it was designed to do, the central tenet of Americanism, the belief in self-government.

Behold the examples of even our most recent policy decisions. See how these decisions aggrandize the power of the state at our expense, and all in the purported service of the new regime. Then inquire anew whether we should not quickly learn to employ George Washington’s language toward the Indian, “our brother,” thence springing to his defense as the surest means to defend ourselves….

Grandparents, Hurt by ICWA, write:

 Comments Off on Grandparents, Hurt by ICWA, write:
Dec 242008
 

.
“We are in a situation where we have a daughter-in-law who is 1/8 (tribal) —and one grandchild 1/16 (not eligible per blood quantum), who have been become part of the Department of Human Services system.

We are the closest blood kin, as paternal grandparents, and want to provide for our 10 month old granddaughter while our son and his wife meet the requirements and hopefully reunite their family in 3 to about 9 months.

I say “hopefully” now that the… (tribe) has become involved. They say they have “rights” based upon the Indian Child Welfare Act based upon descendancy!”

… 3 years later

…We paid over $55,000 of our retirement monies because of the tribe and ICWA–

…. We had to help our daughter-in-law in the same fashion as our son, because her family/tribe did nothing but put their full force into destroying the family, and using ICWA did irraparable damage to our families in composition, financially, emotionally.

We firmly believe that when our son and wife try to begin another family, the tribe will find them and destroy whatever peace they might achieve, inventing whatever lies they might to achieve their own ends. Do I sound bitter? You bet. I need to do something constructive, but with our own situation, with illness, and now, having much less financial resources, must first try to keep our own heads above the financial waters. …

Sincerely, (name), former grandparents of (child’s name)
.

“ICWA for Dummies” – Illegality of ICWA for Those That Can’t Think

 Comments Off on “ICWA for Dummies” – Illegality of ICWA for Those That Can’t Think
Dec 212008
 

.
Okay, some people can’t wrap their brains around why what happened last week to the tiny baby who was taken away from a safe and loving home, the adoptive home of Clint and Heather Larson, and given to a foster family on the dysfunctional and dangerous Leech Lake Reservation was totally and utterly wrong.

Let me say it very slowly and clearly for those with brain dysfunction….

My husband’s family is from Cass Lake, a major town on the Leech Lake Reservation. Leech Lake is very, very Dangerous to live in.

The Tribal Government …(Get ready for this) …Does Not Own My Children.
,
Thus, this related concept:
.
The Tribal Government …(Get ready for this) …Does Not Own Anyone’s Children.
.
Now, I know that many have missed the news over the last couple years. But some might still remember names and issues in the back of their heads. Names like… Abramoff and Conrad Burns, and others that, along with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, believe in the “Pay to Play” concept.
.
Okay, so now I’ll say this slowly.
.
Tribal Governments… Get More Money Per Head. (I will post some of the many federal programs tied to tribal census figures later.)
.
Thus, they Want More Heads.
.
The Last Census Indicates that Many Enrollable Families are Moving AWAY From the Reservations.
.
MEANING – Tribal Governments NEED Bodies in order to have Their “Sovereign Nation.” If Bodies move away, they Need Some Way to Regain their Population.
.
Tribal Governments…(Are you Ready?) have been spending more and more on buying Senators over the last thirty years, and currently Contribute Millions of Dollars to Federal Campaigns. (See the Open Secrets web site for documentation)
.
Tribal Governments have contributed large amounts of money to federal campaigns, including those of several on the Senate Committee for Indian Affairs. Former Senator Conrad Burns is one great example of a corrupt Senator changing his mind for a price. In the 1990’s, the tribes considered him one of their opponents as he rightly tried to introduce legislation to limit tribal jurisdiction over non-members. He supported our stand on ICWA. He also tried to keep the National Bison Range as a national jewel, where people of every race would have opportunity for employment.
.
However, after the tribes derided and embarrassed him over the jurisdiction issue at a Billings meeting, he changed his mind. He began taking money from the tribes and was involved with Abramoff. He did a total Flip Flop on the Bison Range issue. When we went back to him about ICWA, his staff said he would never support new Indian policy legislation unless all 500 tribes agreed to it.
.
We lived in Montana at the time and helped to vote him out of office, but not before he’d done damage. At any rate, he’s just one example of one of our great Senators who loved money a little too much. There are many more.
.
And The Tribes Have Lots of Money to Give. Research Tribal Campaign Contributions.

Now, ask yourself two questions:
.
#1) WHY have so many enrollable members moved off the reservation? As for our family and many of our relatives, the answer is that The Reservation Is No Place to Safely Raise Your Children.

Some will try figure out some way to blame it on the “white man.” Only trouble is, MOST Enrollable members are more white than Indian. Can you Understand that? It’s easy math. Most tribes require only 1/4 blood quantum to be enrollable. SOME TRIBES have much LESS. And the Cherokee Tribe has NO required blood quantum. We have a case where tribes has been interfering with an adoption of a child with less than 2% blood quantum. (https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html)
.

.
#2) If the Tribes have so much money to pay Congressmen with, as well as attorneys to chase children down with, why aren’t they instead spending that same money on infrastructure and job growth on the reservation? What are the true priorities? Why not just develop resources and make an honest effort to move away from the federal dole? If the reservations were cleaned up, wouldn’t more people want to stay there and live? How can a government call itself Sovereign when it is constantly running to the US Congress and demanding more money? Sounds like a bunch of teenagers!
.
So, let me wrap this little lesson up by pointing out the obvious to those that don’t understand the obvious. I will use my family as an example in order to get the point across.
.
The Tribe Does NOT Own My Family – and in Particular, MY Children.
.
My Children are 50% Minnesota Chippewa, but they are also 1/4 German, Jewish, and a spattering pf Irish Catholic. They have OTHER relatives than just those on the reservation.
.
MOST enrollable children have relatives of other heritage.
.
In fact, my enrollable children have German Jewish relatives that died at Auschwitz.
.
So tell me Brainiacs. why my children’s Native American heritage is more important than their Jewish, Irish, or Scottish heritage. Tell me why in the world the state of Minnesota has passed a law last year that says that suggests tribal heritage is more important, and that the Minnesota tribes have jurisdiction over any enrollable child, even if the child and his family don’t want to be involved with the tribe and has never had any contact or relationship with the tribe.
.
That law affects not only my children but my grandchildren, who will all be at least 1/4 Minnesota Chippewa.
.

For every non-Indian screaming about how we have to honor Leech Lake’s tribal sovereignty…why don’t you move your families to Cass Lake, Minnesota. Enroll your kids in school there. Encourage them to go play at the housing tracts.
.
Go ahead, hypocrites. You know darn well you wouldn’t‘ want your children raised there. So get your nose out of my family, and quit making stupid statements as well as laws that state that MY Children belong there.
.
A commenter had the nerve in an earlier post to suggest the Larson’s had “kidnapped” this baby. Excuse me? Who the heck are the ones doing the kidnapping, but the tribes themselves that push federal and state legislators to give them all the rights to Our Children!
.

Possible Incentives for ICWA –

 Comments Off on Possible Incentives for ICWA –
Dec 152008
 

.
Tribal Government Funding?

Ms. Scott Kayla Morrison, a member of the Mississippi Choctaw Tribe as well as an attorney specializing in Indian law, wrote in 1998, “ICWA is a money-driven program for the tribes from three perspectives: 1) federal funds generated by tribal membership; 2) federal income to fund program jobs; and 3) federal funds to administer courts adjudicating ICWA cases.

– “First, each tribal member generates $5,000 (1992) for the tribal administration from the thirteen federal agencies funding Indian programs. The more members, the more federal funds. With no blood quantum [required], [some tribes allow] a person with as little as 1/2000th (to) be enrolled as an Indian. If an Indian child is adopted by non-Indians, the tribe loses $5,000 a year for the lifespan of the child.

– “Second, federal dollars fund the ICWA program for the tribe. This generates jobs for tribal administration directly through program funds and indirectly through administrative costs. Of every federal dollar allocated by Congress, 89 cents goes to administer the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The remaining 11 cents goes to tribal administration. The Choctaw administration is allowed to take 46%, almost half or 5.5 cents, for administrative indirect costs. The remaining 5.5 cents are used to administer programs like ICWA. The more membership to serve, the more money the tribe requests that generates more jobs and more indirect costs. Allowing adoption outside the tribe cuts into the pocketbook of tribal administration.

– “Third, one purpose of a tribal court or a Code of Federal Register (CFR) Court is to adjudicate ICWA cases. The amount of federal funds allocated to the court is based on the number of cases served by the ICWA
program. The court program funds generate indirect costs and jobs.”

Ms. Morrison was correct. As a matter of fact –

– According to ACF Administration For Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 9, 2007, Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance –

“Tribal Child Counts: For funds that become available in FY 2008, ACF will calculate grant awards based on the number of children under age 13. A Tribe must submit a self-certified Child Count Declaration for children under age 13 (not age 13 and under), in order to receive FY 2008 CCDF funds.

“ – Tribal Lead Agencies are reminded that CCDF funds are allocated based on child counts of children from Federally recognized Indian Tribes, consistent with the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act’s definition of Indian Tribe.”

– According to Aneva J. Yazzie, Chief Executive Officer, Navajo Housing Authority
In her testimony before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, on Reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, July 18th, 2007, Washington, DC

“The most contentious issue facing Indian housing in the last few years has been the use of Census data to determine funding allocations. NHA has been heavily involved in this discussion because we believe this is not just a debate about how funds are allocated; it is fundamental to NAHASDA and to all Indian programs. Tribal housing must remain for tribal members and tribal members should be counted when determining funding allocations.

“…We support the use of tribal enrollment data, not Census data, to determine need under NAHASDA. Until terms of verifiable enrollment data can be agreed upon by federal government and tribal representatives, NHA urges a return to the use of single-race Census data because, while imperfect, it is the better approximation of tribal enrollment numbers.

(NOTE from Blog Author: Census data shows that NOT ALL ENROLLED MEMBERS are LIVING on the RESERVATION. Tribes would only recieve funds for members actually living on the reservation. Therefore, Tribes perfer Enrollement Numbers because THEY INCLUDE MANY WHO HAVE MOVED AWAY and who, like our family, have NO INTEREST in using tribal funds or programs.)

“… One change in federal law we would like the Committee to consider would be the elimination of the prohibition from using Indian Health Service funds in concert with NAHASDA funds… The concern that the lack of available funds means we should keep these funding streams separate may be well-intended, but it flies in the face of
Tribal self-determination.”

– According to the 2003 DOI-BIA Indian Population and Labor Force Report, mandated by order of Public law 102-477, “The Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992:

– Total number of enrolled tribal members and members from other tribes who live on or near the reservation and are eligible to use the tribe’s Bureau of Indian Affairs funded services – Total 2003 Tribal enrollment – 1,923,650. 5.9% increase from 2001 labor force report, 34.7% from 1995. The 2003 increase is attributed to updated tribal rolls, improved record keeping procedures, and revisions to tribal enrollment criteria.
– Total 2003 Service population 1,587,519. 4.2% increase from 2001 labor force report. 26.0% from 1995. It is also a 216% increase over the Total Service Population reported in 1982. The 2003 Service Population increase is attributed to increased record keeping and improved data collection methods, as well as eligible Indian individuals and families who came to reside in the tribe’s service area to benefit from opportunities and services unavailable to them in off-reservation
communities.
– 562 Federally recognized tribes

– Several corporate and “at-large” Alaska tribal entities formed by the 1971 ANCS Act.

– From Indianz.com, “House panel boosts funds for Indian Programs”, Monday, June 11, 2007. accessed Aug. 30, 2007 –

– Indian Education, urban health clinics, law enforcement, and language preservation will see boosts in funding under bills advanced by the House Appropriations committee last week.
– At a markup on Thursday, the committee approved 5,7 billion for Indian programs at the Interior Department and related agencies, including the Indian Health Service….
– The bill “honors our obligations to Native American communities, making investments into better education and healthcare,” the committee said of the overall $27.6 billion package, an increase of 4.3 percent over current levels.”

,

Tribal Government shouldn’t have jurisdiction over our kids

 1 Response »
May 032008
 

.
Wake up America. Tribal Government’s should not be given jurisdiction over our children simply because they claim the right. I understand that tribal government jurisdiction over Indian children sounds like common sense. It seems like a no brainer when tribal governments approach the federal and state governments and say, “They are our children and we have a right to raise them.” Everyone just nods their head and says, “Sure, no problem!”

Heavens, everyone’s afraid they’ll be accused of racism if they take the time to really think the issue through.

Wake up. These aren’t the tribe’s children. The ones in my home, for example, happen to be MY children, and we have no intention of living within the reservation system. Other parents across the country feel the same. According to the last census, most enrolled tribal members live off the reservation. Many, just like our family, left because they don’t want their children raised amid the dangers and dysfunction on the reservation. As American citizens, we have the right to make that choice for our families. And as well-intended as some in government are, they haven’t the ability to know what is best for my family or for the many other families that have left to live a different life.

Further, MOST children falling under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and other tribal jurisdiction laws have relatively small amounts of Indian heritage. Did you read that right?

Tribal governments decide their own membership and most have decided ¼ blood quantum is all that’s necessary. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma goes further and claims jurisdiction over any child with ancestry tracing back to the Dawes Rolls no matter how minute the blood quantum.

Now, the ICWA defines an Indian child as any “enrollable” child. Think it through.

Parents can’t avoid ICWA and other jurisdictional laws by not enrolling their children.

Therefore, many children with 1/4 or less heritage and no connection to Indian Country fall under ICWA. And that is actually most of the affected children.

It’s plain as day. Think of a pyramid. Children of 100% heritage are the least common. They are at the tip. The largest number of children are the ones with little heritage. They make up the base. But being of little heritage also means they are primarily non-tribal and have a large percentage of relatives that are also non-tribal.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not noting this because I think the non-tribal heritage is of primary significance. There is no blood quantum of any heritage is of primary importance over another. All of my children’s heritages are interesting and valuable. I hate the idea of referring to a percentage of a child’s heritage in the same way one refers to the pedigree of a dog. How demeaning. Or worse, it is abhorrent to focus a preference on one blood heritage in the same way 1940’s Germany scrutinized the heritages of millions. The only point of noting blood quantum is to note that children with less than 100% heritage have more than one history and more than one set of interesting and important relatives.

What I am pointing out is that ICWA and other jurisdictional laws affect millions of people – and most aren’t even aware of it.

Until something comes up.

January 2008, the Navajo Nation sent for a 6-year-old girl in Texas. The little girl had been living with her father most of her life. Now, the birth mother wanted custody. Normally, there is a hearing, an attorney looking out for the child’s interests, and a transition period if there is to be a change of custody. Normally, both parents get equal opportunity to state their case. But this wasn’t normal, and the Texas County police, thinking the Navajo court order was enough, helped the tribe pick the little girl up from her day care without a Texas Court order. The little girl and her father wept, and then she was gone. He has seen her only once since, at a hearing in Navajo Tribal Court. Again, they held on to each other and wept.

That was in late March. He hasn’t been able to see or speak to her since. He hasn’t been given an address or phone number to contact her and the guardian ad litem hasn’t been able to locate her. He has no money, and the attorney he hired has put him on notice. No funds, no help.

A man in Oklahoma has fought to keep his baby girl. The tribe took custody right after the child’s birth and refused to even tell him her name let alone see her. Two years ago, a tribal court judge told him that because he is white, he had no rights to his baby. At one point he won custody. However, the tribe has appealed it, and his lawyer told him he needs about $30,000 to fight the appeal. He doesn’t have the money.

As unbelievable as it seems, some parents have lost custody of their children because they couldn’t afford a lawyer.

A three year old girl in Oregon hasn’t seen her birth mom in over two years. The last time she saw her mom was when the tribal police took her out of her mother’s arms at a tribal court hearing that was only supposed to be about getting a DNA test. The mom tried to hang on to her, but the judge ordered the police to take the baby by force, so they put pressure on her arms until she let go. Since then, she tried to get her back but couldn’t to find a lawyer to help. In 2007, she wrote:

“… Last year was very hard for me, and the constant let down of not being able to see or speak to my baby has tore me apart. I have spoken to the … father and he informed [me] that it is final that I will never be able to see my little girl again as long he has anything to do with it. So I have taken it very hard. I did write the tribal court judges, and asked for another hearing at least for visitation, and my pleas were denied. …. There is probably not a day that goes by that I don’t cry for my baby. I feel like the life I once had no longer exists.”

She isn’t alone. A mother in Wisconsin is trying to keep her 4-year-old daughter off the reservation. She said she has spoke to dozens of lawyers and can’t find anyone to help her.
ICWA doesn’t apply to custody battles between parents. Nonetheless, many tribal courts claim jurisdiction over all children, even in custody battles. Non-tribal parents with limited knowledge or funds find themselves in situations they can’t do anything about, commonly facing discrimination in the tribal courts.

ICWA does apply in foster and adoptive cases, but the next two stories are examples of how the law can harm even these children. It is also an example of how the law reaches out to affect children with limited tribal heritage.

A Texas fireman and his wife offered to take custody of a baby whose mother was considering abortion. She agreed. Later, after the baby was in their home for several weeks and adoption procedures had begun, the father wrote,

“… it was discovered she [the birthmother] is 1/128th Cherokee. That makes my son 1/256 or .0039% Native American and 99.9961% not…. His mother…was very adamant about the Cherokee Nation NOT raising her child and the court records show this. In April of 2006, we were notified of the Cherokee Nation’s intent to take us to court and remove our son from our home… Since then, we have been in a constant state of panic…”

To this date, in May 2008, this family is still fighting to complete this adoption. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on the effort, but will continue to fight to the end because of their love for this little boy.

A couple in Arkansas had custody of two little girls for 5 years. Late one night in February, 2007, as the adoptive parents were getting their two girls ready for bed, police arrived at their door. The 10-year-old twins already were in pajamas, but brandishing a court order, the police took the frightened girls and drove them 60 miles to the home of the other relative. They weren’t able to even tell friends good-bye.

Background: In October, 2002, the birth mother, a distant cousin, had arranged for the couple to adopt the twins. However, after signing the papers, an elderly relative who had four of the twins’ siblings began custody action. Although everyone agrees the adoptive parents kept a loving and stable home, the elderly relative won custody with the Tribe’s support. But within months, all of the children were removed from that home due to neglect. However, the twins weren’t returned to their adoptive parents. All the children were instead places back with the birth mother.

Interestingly, neither the birth mother, the adoptive family, NOR the relative were Indian, so why was the tribe involved?

Because the twins’ natural father is an enrolled member. And although the court said that he had “undisputedly abandoned the children,” his status made him “relevant to this case.” This gave the tribe jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The tribe wanted the twins placed with the siblings, “irrespective of the fact that many other full and half-siblings are scattered among several other states.” And irrespective of the children’s other various heritages.

Again, why take children from the only safe, nuclear family they’d ever had, and place them in unstable homes?

Power. Citing a 1974 Congressional hearing statement, “there is no resource … more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children…,” an appeals court found that the “best interest” of the child wasn’t the only issue for a court to consider. Citing ICWA, the court found that “maintaining the integrity of the Nation, its culture, its children, and its progression through time not to become extinct” also had to be considered.

In other words – (stop and re-read what this appeals court actually said) this law is for the benefit of the tribal entity and tribal government. It is not designed for the benefit of individuals or families.

Be that as it may, neither the Tribe nor Arkansas explained how moving the girls from the potential adoptive parents and non-tribal home they loved to a foster situation in a non-tribal home they were strangers to would help preserve the tribe.

According to Mississippi v. Holyfield, ICWA’s original goal was to combat “abusive child welfare practices” that took children from tribal communities and placed them in unfamiliar environments with strangers. The trauma that Indian children suffered from, among other things, being forced to enroll in far-off boarding schools is undeniable. But today the reverse is happening. Children that have never been near a reservation are being removed from environments they love and forced to live with strangers chosen by tribes.

Tribal authorities argue they are most qualified to decide the best interest of enrollable children. Are they? Arguments aside as to how ICWA has safeguards to prevent misuse, stories affecting black, Hispanic, Norwegian-American and other families reflect this reality. Letters from birth parents, grandparents, pre-adoptive families, and tribal members themselves can be read at https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html

Three years ago, two boys of 50-50 heritage were taken from their paternal, Mexican grandparents in California and sent to their Ute grandmother in Utah. Their home in California was loving and safe. They were sent to Utah only because social workers decided that ICWA required it. In a matter of weeks, 3-year old Emilio Rodriguez and his brother, Jose, 4-years-old, were beaten so severely that they both suffered severe concussions and Jose ended up in a coma. Why were they beaten? It was reported in the Utah papers that their maternal grandmother didn’t like that they were speaking Spanish.

The boys and their sister are now back with their Mexican grandparents who recently won a million dollar lawsuit against the United States for removing the boys and placing them with the Utah grandmother. The Utah grandmother is in jail.

If there is any case that illustrates just how bad the ICWA is, this one would be it. Wake Up, America. Do away with this law that primarily benefits governments, not people.

 Newer Entries