Sage’s Story: Running from ICWA

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

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

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

– http://youtu.be/TEogtESN5Wo

Concerning the long ago Mayo Clinic Prayer Study

 Comments Off on Concerning the long ago Mayo Clinic Prayer Study
Aug 062014
 

A Commenter on our Facebook page noted, “Mayo and a few other hospitals did a study on the power of prayer. They found it made no positive difference. Amazing things happen the same rate with prayer or without prayer. If there were any positive evidence for the power of prayer in healing, Mayo would be using it.”

Our response: As much as we respect the Mayo Clinic, it was an incredibly silly study and an even sillier conclusion. Every organization makes an occasional mistake.

They decided there was no benefit to the prayer because they saw little difference in outcomes.

They didn’t consider that America in 2002 and even today, most everyone in dire medical circumstances receives prayer. ie: The researchers aren’t able to stop prayer within the control group. They can set up their own special prayer team to pray for certain people, but they can’t stop the patient’s local church from praying, let alone Mom, Dad, Sister, Brother, Grandma, neighbor and best friend.

So there is absolutely no way to do a “Scientific” study of prayer. There is no way to determine whether any of the patients received absolutely no prayer – and absolutely no way to determine what the outcome for any patient would have been had they not received prayer.

The researchers can NOT deny the possibility that every patient – or almost every patient – did in fact have a more positive outcome from the prayer they received (whether researchers were aware of the prayer they were receiving or not.)

There is no way to create a prayer “Vacuum” – and there is no way to measure an outcome that “might” have occurred but didn’t.

All it takes is the “effectual fervent prayer of a righteous soul.” Two or more righteous souls agreeing are even better. And that is another aspect of this flawed study. They didn’t allow people to pray their own way – in the “effectual, fervent” way their hearts might have been led to. The researchers told them when to pray, how long to pray, and what to pray. They directed the prayer-givers away from praying the way they desired. And then they question the inevitable outcome? Ridiculous.

In evangelical circles, we talk about “praying through.” I would feel sick to my stomach – a deep ache in my chest – if I had an overwhelming prayer in my heart and wasn’t allowed to pray it the way it needed to be prayed. I can’t imagine doing intercessory prayer with chains on. It would be like having a straitjacket on.

THEREFORE – it is far more likely that any prayer received by the participants of the study was far more effectual and fervent if it was coming from outside the assigned prayer team.

Harvard Medical School, which also participated in the study, said this:

“…Unlike traditional intercessory prayers, STEP investigators imposed limitations on the usual way prayer-givers would normally provide prayer. The researchers standardized the start and duration of prayers and provided only the patients’ first name and last initial. Prayers began on the eve or day of surgery and continued daily for 14 days. Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer. Providing the names of patients directed prayer-givers away from a desire to pray for everyone participating in the study. Because the study was designed to investigate intercessory prayer, the results cannot be extrapolated to other types of prayer.

“…Patients across the three groups had similar religious profiles. Most believed in spiritual healing and almost all believed friends or relatives would be praying for them. Investigators did not ask patients to have their friends and families withhold prayers, and assumed that many patients prayed for themselves during the study.”

“One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer,” said co-author Manoj Jain, Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.

“May be impossible?” I should think the spiritual communities would be outraged at this gross mischaracterization of prayer.

Perhaps few have looked very deeply into how this “prayer study” was actually conducted.

The Mayo study was based on a false premise from the get go. Their presupposition was that prayer is a command to God. “What ever we pray, we should get” – as if God is obligated to obey. Their study was a set up for failure. (a fact born out by their “scientific conclusion” – despite the fact that it was scientific as there was no way to control a “control group”)

Prayer is not a command to God – one in which every prayer breathed demands a requisite positive response. God knows the heart and motivations of those who are praying, as well as those who are prayed for. He is aware of hearts that are contrite – and those that are not.

Prayer is a request – HE is Lord, not us – and sometimes the answer is “No.” Other times, the answer is delayed.

God’s will be done – not ours. Fortunately, when it comes to abused children, God’s will has been pretty clear. So that makes our job on this page pretty easy. Not a lot of guess work on where Jesus would stand on abuses.

– “And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” (Mark 10:13-16)

You can argue against prayer all you want, no one is forcing you to participate or even to read our prayers. I have personally experienced and witnessed amazing answers to prayer. So I will continue to pray.

I Love Serving Our Awesome God.

In closing, I pray that someday you will experience an awesome answer to prayer, and it will turn your mind completely around to the Truth of Our Lord – and you will fall to your knees and weep for Joy at His Holy Touch. I pray this in the Holy Name of Jesus.

Wives: How to help and understand your husband’s FAS…

 1 Response »
Jul 122014
 

SHARED WITH PERMISSION – on the chance it could help someone else who is quietly struggling…

_________________________

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 9:43 AM, a Mom wrote:

… when I get mad at him he just shuts down and stop responding and goes away to la la land in his mind. That’s when I start realizing that something else is going on inside him that he is not able to process mentally and emotionally that I guess is probably typical of people with FAS. I keep telling him that it seems like something is broken inside of him how he just shuts down and stops thinking or caring about what he is doing.
If it’s FAS, does it cause him to tell lies all the time though? Especially when it comes to gambling and money issues that he tries to hide from me….

_________________________

On Fri, ‎Jul‎ ‎11‎, ‎2014 at ‎10‎:‎23‎ ‎AM, A Grandmother wrote:

They struggle with understanding “cause and effect.” They aren’t always able to think ahead and figure out “if I do this, then that will happen.” Further, they are very into “feeling good” at the moment. They are prone to doing what pleasures them most at the moment, without the ability to see outcomes.

When he gets caught, it is like a deer in the headlights. He doesn’t know what to do. He realizes he messed up, is grieved by your anger, but doesn’t know what to do to fix it. So he lies in the hope of getting out of trouble. Yes – like a child.

He craves pleasure. The FAS plus the way he was raised leads him to think that he needs and deserves constant pleasure. “That is the way life is supposed to be.”

But God knew all this when he created him. And God has also put something very special and beautiful in him. A skill or characteristic. You probably already have a feeling for what it is. As his wife, you can nurture that special thing and help him to grow and walk in it.

That’s exciting. What an adventure that can be for both of you.

We are all so much more content and fulfilled when walking in the gifts and purpose God has given us.

_________________________

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 6:22 PM, a Mom wrote:

I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing this with me. For the last years of my life with my husband, I have been guilty of emotionally abusing him in order to get him to change and realize how his behavior is hurting us all, never fully realizing that it was a physical impossibility for him to change.
Whenever I would try and confront him he would shut down and not respond, he would withdraw and literally fall asleep and the more mad I got the more he would explode in a rage, destroying anything and everything that got in his way. I always knew there was something mentally broken inside of him but no one ever confirmed with me what I was seeing …It really is heartbreaking looking back at all the years and the misery we have been through because I was trying to get him to change. I think this is why God protects my husband so much from all the mistakes his makes also because God knows my husband is trying the best he can with what he has. He tried to do good but it seems impossible for him at times to make the right decisions and force himself to do what is right. My husband really is like a child inside a man’s body not only in the way he thinks but in the way he acts.
I just wish I had known somewhat when I met him at 14 years old, but how could I have? …
I just hope and pray that God can save our family. I know I have done a lot to really screw things up for us… the great thing is, that his mother has always been there to help us, especially her son, no matter what it is, whether it be food, money, clothes, taking garbage to the dump, running errands….
God bless you. Thank you sooooo much for taking the time to write me and help me see things a little bit clearer.

_________________________

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM, A Grandmother wrote:

You’re welcome. I just wish I had understood a lot about FAS during our more difficult years. It is now, after my husband is gone and the relative’s children that we raised are grown, that I look back and see where I could have been more patient. It is only now, with the stress of all of it gone, that I can see their hearts better.

_________________________

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:43 PM, a Mom wrote:

I was just wondering if you could please share with me the prayer you said you were told to pray for your family. I would like to make it my personal prayer along with so much forgiveness for how insensitive I have been towards my husband and his mother over the years.

_________________________

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:35 PM, A Grandmother wrote:

It was a very simple prayer. All Scotty Butterfly told me to do was to ask Jesus to save my family – and then immediately thank Jesus for having done so. (Even though you haven’t seen the miracle yet, give thanks to the Lord for all things – knowing in faith that He has heard your prayer and is responding.)

So even though I wasn’t a Christian yet, that is what I did. It wasn’t until 4 years later that the miracle happened – but it undeniably happened.

I will ask others to pray in agreement for your family as well.

_________________________

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 9:35 PM, A Grandmother wrote:

We realize his limitations, but we still need him to become better at things.
1. We do need to explain truth, but in a gentle way.
2. Understanding his need for entertainment and pleasure, we can look for healthier ways he can achieve that.
o Help him find his pleasure at home, with family, doing good things. We can look for fun things to do as a family – picnics, fishing, camping, etc.
o We can look for his skill area and encourage and support everything he does in that area. Is he a craftsman? An artist? A hunter? A musician? A mechanic? A good listener?
o We can be wives that complement our husbands. We can help him feel good about himself and his family life so he has pleasure in being with and doing well for his family. Pour it on about every manly thing you enjoy. “Wow – I love the way you chop wood.” (Sounds silly – but another wife told us she did just that – and as simple as that kind of thing was – it made a tremendous impact on their marriage.)

Also, the Bible has some interesting advice for husbands and wives. It tells men to “Love” their wives the way Christ loved the church (be willing to lay down their lives for them) But… the Bible doesn’t tell women to love their husbands. It tells us to honor them.
Interesting difference. Of course, we KNOW God wants us to love our husbands. So why wasn’t it said? Perhaps the Bible is giving us encouragement in the areas we are generally weakest? Men need to be reminded to show love to their wives, as their wives hunger for that more than anything.
Women, on the other hand, generally love their husbands, but struggle with honoring them – something men have a deep need for.
It is true that our husbands have shortcomings. WE are usually the first to point that out But God is the one who knit them together in the womb, even while knowing their mother was drinking. I don’t believe God wanted for the damage to happen, but as with every other sin issue that affects humanity, the parents had free will and with that, made the choice. People hurt each other in all kinds of way, in all stages of life.
But God still has a purpose for and a gift in every child. Kind of like the Snow White story. The evil witch cast a curse, and the good fairy came behind and altered it. God (a whole lot better than a silly fairytale witch) has a special gift in everyone.

Praise God my husband found his purpose – things of God that gave him true pleasure – and walked in it. Yours will, too.
ONE other thing I might note… for a long time, in our early years in the church, I resented what I saw as weakness in him. I kept comparing him to other men in the church and wondering why he couldn’t be as Godly as this guy or that guy. Finally someone told me… those men have always been in the church. They were raised in the church and their father was a pastor, etc… They have had their entire lives to walk toward the line of perfection. They haven’t had very far to walk, but will never actually reach that line prior to dying.
Now look at your husband. He came out of the gutter. He has come ten times farther than any of those other men in just the short time he has been walking with the Lord.
Think about that. He might still be way behind those other men, but look how incredibly far he has come. He has traversed things those other men have no clue about.
What a Godsend those words were. They turned my entire perspective around. It was the beginning of my appreciation for him.

Tom Sullivan’s Response to ACF Superior Ms. McMullen, (July 1, 2014)

 1 Response »
Jul 052014
 

July 1, 2014

Ms. Mcmullen:

It is unfortunate that neither the leadership of my agency nor my department had the courtesy to inform me that I had been invited by the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs to testify about conditions on the Spirit Lake Reservation at the Subcommittee’s Hearing on June 24, 2014.

Associate Commissioner Chang’s testimony was, at best, confusing where it was not false. In the second sentence of her prepared testimony she speaks about the Administration’s concerns about child safety and well-being at Spirit Lake. Finally, after more than two years, 13 Mandated Reports and numerous emails to ACF leadership about the lack of safety for Spirit Lake kids, someone, other than me, is saying safety of children is of concern. Of course that contradicts an exchange I had with Mr. McKearn, Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget for ACF, back in July, 2012 when I was told that the safety of kids at Spirit Lake was not a priority. I guess the leadership of ACF never has to explain their position nor apologize when that position is proven wrong.

Ms. Chang’s claim that BIA has addressed, “…most notably the safety checks prior to placement” is simply false. If the BIA had addressed the safety checks prior to placement, Laurynn Whiteshield would be alive today, soon to celebrate her fourth birthday with her twin sister, Michaela. Instead she has been in the ground for more than a year, dead at the hands of her step-grandmother, who, it was well-known by most families on Spirit Lake, beat and abused her own children so badly they were removed from her home.

Ms. Chang goes on with the assertion about the strengths at Spirit Lake, saying, “Perhaps the most important strength is the commitment of the new leadership under Chairman McDonald and the work of the BIA.” Early on in this process the BIA and Tribal leadership were presented a list of 137 children who were in uncertain placements or unaccounted for at that time. At the Subcommittee Hearing Ms. Merrick-Brady, the Acting Director of Spirit Lake’s Tribal Social Services, explained that 66 children had been found and accounted for. That means that after 13 Mandated Reports, numerous detailed, factual emails about continuing abuse of children at Spirit Lake, 21 months after the BIA Strike Team arrived with much fanfare and ten months after Chairman McDonald was elected Chair there are still more kids unaccounted for than accounted for. How many of these unaccounted for children have been trafficked into the man camps of the Bakken oil fields, just a few hours down the road from Spirit Lake? If the safety of the children of Spirit Lake is our top priority, this performance should be called what it is, “weak and inadequate”.

Most witnesses at congressional hearings are told that if they don’t know the answer to a question, there is no problem in saying so and offering to provide the information requested in a few days. When asked a question about how often I had been at Spirit Lake, Ms. Chang seemed eager to offer her lying answer, saying that I had never been there, giving the impression we had discussed that question just the night before. Ms. Chang has never sought me out to ask me any question of any kind. Why would a woman of her stature lie so blatantly about me? Was she seeking to tarnish my reputation? As I cautioned the Spirit Lake Chair in an email last week, quoting the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who frequently said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not his own facts.”

I have been to Spirit Lake three or four times in the last four years. Prior to that time each year I routinely met a couple of times a year in Bismarck with all of the child welfare directors from the four North Dakota reservations. I attended their meetings, spoke when asked and sought to assist them to develop more productive relationships with state human services staff to assist them in reducing their caseloads per worker to the levels prevalent in the majority community.

Thomas F. Sullivan Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

Tom Sullivan’s Response to Chairman McDonald’s Hearing Testimony

 1 Response »
Jul 052014
 

June 25, 2014

Chairman McDonald:

It was quite interesting to listen to your testimony and response to questions yesterday. I was reminded of the famous quote from the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who frequently said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not his own facts.”
There were three points where your opinions expressed as facts are so egregious that I must respond specifically to each of them.

First, you claimed that, during our meeting here in Denver in early April of this year, you had offered me a job at Spirit Lake. This subject never came up during my conversation with you. If it did, I would be prohibited under federal conflict of interest requirements from accepting such a post-federal employment position.

You are Chair of the Spirit Lake Council because the prior Chair was removed due to the community’s perception he was totally ineffective in dealing with the child protection issues at Spirit Lake. When we met you had been Chair for 7 months and as far as my sources and I were concerned we saw no discernible improvement in the safety of the Spirit Lake children who I had been complaining about, at that time, for 22 months. My sources have been complaining about the treatment of Spirit Lake children for several years before I arrived on the scene.

I learned just last week that, by your silence, you are apparently endorsing a tribal judge’s refusal to extradite a Level 3 Sex Offender, who has already served a lengthy sentence for his vicious rape of a teen girl, to Ramsey County to stand trial on four felony indictments for child sexual abuse. You failure after seven months in office, to protect the children who had been moved into the full-time, unsupervised care and custody of addicts, abusers and rapists where they are available to be raped daily, I believe, is unconscionable and, if the subject of employment had been raised, would have elicited an extremely loud negative response from me, a response that would have been heard not only by you but also by anyone within 30 feet of our conversation. Under no circumstances would I allow my character and integrity to be used as a cover for your failures to effectively address the abuse and rape of Spirit Lake children. Did you think that somehow you could shield yourself from public scrutiny by hiding behind my well-known reputation for integrity and honesty built over more than 45 years of professional experience, much of it spent rooting out abusive situations such as you seem to wish to protect? Your continuing refusal to speak publicly against your tribal judge’s refusal to extradite this violent rapist moves you, I believe, into the ranks of the criminally corrupt.

I have spoken to a good friend, a long-time tribal council-member from another state in this region, who knows you and who was horrified at your willingness to shield this rapist from trial in Ramsey County and who also said he would try to speak with you about the foolhardiness of your position.

Second, you claimed that during our meeting you had asked me why I had not filed any 960s with the appropriate tribal offices and claimed I had no answer. I told you that I had been receiving widespread complaints from Indian Health Service employees, former Tribal Social Services staff, former Tribal court staff, all stating that when they filed 960s they were ignored and thrown away, that no action was taken on them no matter how serious the problem complained of was. I went on to tell you that under these circumstances I believed it was unlikely that anything different would happen to any 960 that I filed. You have to admit that if I had not filed 13 Mandated Reports, but instead only filed 960s, yesterday’s hearing probably would not have happened.

Third, you claimed that during our meeting you asked me why I had not responded to your letter to me and claimed that I had no explanation. During our meeting I explained to you that when I received and saw your letter in my Denver office, Ms. Mcmullen had already pre-empted my response with a response of her own. Somehow, your letter to me took several days longer to arrive in Denver than it took to get to her in Washington, DC. The US Postal Service is full of surprises but I believe you followed the practice of your predecessor who when he sent a letter addressed to both the Acting Assistant Secretary, based in Washington, DC, and to me, he held mine for several days so that, his complaints about my efforts to address the child abuse, rape and torture of kids at Spirit Lake, at least for a few days would go unchallenged by me since I knew nothing about his complaints. I told you I believed you were doing the same thing and that I found that offensive. You had no response to my reconstruction of what you had done. I also told you that since Ms. Mcmullen had responded to your letter to me so promptly, effectively removing me from any substantive involvement with issues at Spirit Lake, no response from me was appropriate.

I trust that in the future you will exercise more care in your future statements about me so that you differentiate more precisely between what is fact and what is only your opinion.

Thomas F. Sullivan Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

“Stakeholders” – the new BIA buzz word –

 Comments Off on “Stakeholders” – the new BIA buzz word –
Jun 202014
 

The word “stakeholders” is the new buzz word at the BIA. They use it in attempt to delimit who they will listen to and who they will not when it comes to federal Indian policy.

However, the Merriam definition of the word is, “a person or business that has invested money in something, one that has a stake in an enterprise, the person entrusted with the stakes of bettors, or one who is involved in or affected by a course of action”

By the Merriam definition, everyone in America, whether as tax-payers, as extended family members (no matter the heritage), as residents of a reservation (no matter the heritage), as business owners on or around the reservation, as local, state, or federal officials, or as simply neighbors adjacent to the reservation (no matter the heritage) – everyone is a “Stakeholder” in federal Indian policy.

And this is what our Congressmen and bureaurats need to realize.
They CAN NOT pass laws targeting one group of people and pretend it doesn’t affect others. They CAN NOT continue to disregard how it affects ALL people.

It is a silly, ridiculous fallacy to pretend only one arbitrarily chosen group of people (as each tribal entity defines its own membership and it varies greatly) is affected by federal Indian policy – and thus are the only stakeholders in the government’s decisions.

It’s long past time for our current government pull its collective head out and respect and honor the US Constitution and the rights and responsibilities afforded by it.

We are ALL stakeholders in federal Indian policy. Period.

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

 2 Responses »
Jun 102014
 

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

Ms. McMullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas F. Sullivan
Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

Mark Fiddler Explains Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl

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

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

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

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

The Facts (fn 2)~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoptive Couple: existing Indian family doctrine left unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoptive Couple: but what about those placement preferences?

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

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

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

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

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

Adoptive Couple: straight statutory construction or constitutional avoidance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoptive Couple: impact on state ICWA laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRES. OBAMA DESCRIBES CHILDREN ESCAPING RAMPANT CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN THEIR NATIVE LANDS AS AN “URGENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS!”

 Comments Off on PRES. OBAMA DESCRIBES CHILDREN ESCAPING RAMPANT CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN THEIR NATIVE LANDS AS AN “URGENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS!”
Jun 032014
 

Wait… whoops… I am so SO sorry! That’s NOT what he said today… rats, that’s the wrong story. It’s from a June 3rd article about the surge of immigrant children from Central America

So, so sorry. I’ll find an article describing President Obama’s speech at Standing Rock… I am certain he will have said the same thing – citing the same urgency. Certainly, I am sure of it…

I mean – there wouldn’t be a contradiction in what feds and tribal officials claim to be absolutely necessary for NA kids – as opposed to what is absolutely necessary for Central American kids, right?

Quoting the June 3rd article – “More than 90 percent of those sheltered by the government [were] driven north by pervasive violence and poverty in their home countries. They are held in agency-contracted shelters while a search is conducted for family, a sponsor or a foster parent who can care for them through their immigration court hearings, where many will apply for asylum or other special protective status…

“Rampant crime and poverty across Central America and a desire to reunite with parents or other relatives are thought to be driving many of the young immigrants.”

Quote another article — “The children, mostly teenagers from Central America, are among the more than 47,000 unaccompanied minors taken into custody at the border since October. Fort Sill is one of three facilities where the children are being held. The others are in Texas and California.”

————-
Friends – we need to know why rhetoric is constantly spewed as to how NA children will suffer from separation from Indian Country – and how they are “resilient” – able to withstand untold abuse and stress because they aren’t like those soft “European” children…yet – we are assured that the kids from Central America WILL suffer and die if returned to their native home.

We need to hear from every tribal official and Congressman as to why it is okay to warehouse children from Central America (non-US citizen) in military facilities, with plans to eventually put them in foster homes (with “Sponsors”) – rather than immediately reunite them with their “culture and extended family” in Central America.

(Tribal leaders, explain to us. Why is a warehouse better for them then their ancestral home?)

Or – tell us the reverse – why it is okay to force Native American (US citizen) children to live amid rampant crime and corruption – with known abusers and sexual offenders, instead of allowing them to live in homes off the Rez that they know, love and feel safe in. I’m not even talking warehouses – but real homes and families.

Why are we spending millions of dollars to keep many NA kids IN dangerous and abusive environments – while at the same time spending millions of dollars to warehouse CA children to keep them OUT of dangerous and abusive environments.

(I am actually thinking we have a flipped thing going on here. It makes a LOT more sense to repatriate non-US citizens with their home land and allow their government to see to their care, than it does to force US citizen children with no connection to tribal government onto a reservation where many have never been before.)

Make up your collective federal mind – and have one policy – an “Equal Protection” – concerning the safety and welfare of children.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/06/03/extra-14-billion-needed-to-care-for-flood-migrant-children-crossing-border/

Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake

 1 Response »
May 062014
 

.
To: Various Legislative Staff – 1:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regional Administrator Sullivan’s letter –

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

Ms. Mcmullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas F. Sullivan
Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

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

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

Three South Dakota Children Given to Abuser?

 1 Response »
May 032014
 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

First Published May 2, 2014 by the authors

Quote from Author:

“This is a PODCAST INTERVIEW with a South Dakota family that was torn apart by the court system. These children have not seen their foster parents since November 1, 2013. The State of South Dakota put these children into a home on the reservation where they we HEAVILY ABUSED, MOLESTED, AND NEGLECTED!!!
This video is in NO WAY ANTI-TRIBE PROPOGANDA. . . Our page (the Angel page) was started by Randal Bohn, a 18 year old member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.”

LETTER TO BIA re: ICWA GUIDELINES

 1 Response »
May 012014
 
BIA - DC

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 CAICW wrote the following letter to BIA officials:

Ms. Cave and the committees involved with transforming ICWA guidelines;

Thank you for allowing input concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act guidelines.
The hosts of the listening session on Thursday, April 24 stated that only tribal leaders have a stake in the ICWA and are thus the sole “stakeholders” in what happens with ICWA. I realize this is what the BIA as well as many in Congress believe.

However, tribal members who have rejected tribal jurisdiction, non-member persons of heritage who rejected the reservation system and/or have never lived under it, and hundreds of thousands of non-Indians across the nation are in fact “stakeholders” in this law – whether government wants to admit it or not.
Non-Indian stakeholders would include the non-Indian birth moms, dads, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins of children adversely affected by the Indian Child Welfare Act. There are hundreds of thousands of them. You can not say that these families are not “stakeholders” if they are having to fight a tribal government over rights to their own children.

And yes – we have current cases of birth family having to fight tribal governments for their own children. We had a grandmother in Colorado last month who won her case to keep her 7-year-old grandson – but would not have won without help from good attorneys. Sadly, we have a birth mother in Michigan right now who is losing against tribal court because she had no money to hire an attorney who could stand up and say the tribal court isn’t following ICWA, let alone regular family law.

When government passes a law that mandatorily gives jurisdiction of ones family to a political entity – and that law affects not just persons who have chosen to be part of that political entity, but everyone of 100% certain blood heritage – Government has approved a law based on race and has way overstepped its bounds. It gets even worse. Bad enough that many persons and families of 100% heritage are forced unwillingly into this political situation due to their race, but our federal government went further – forcing everyone down to 51% heritage to be included in the law – as well as hundreds of thousands of people with even less than 5% heritage. This means families who are predominately non-native – many of whom are unconnected to the reservation system.

Government has lost sight of the reality that 75% of those who are considered Native American do not live within the reservation system and appears to be blind to the reality that the vast majority of people affected by ICWA are predominately of non-Indian heritage. These affected children have OTHER extended family, roots, traditions, and worldviews – all equally important and acceptable.
I am speaking as a birth mother, grandmother and aunt. I am also speaking as representative of our national membership. I and the people I represent are undeniably stakeholders.

Below are some of the issues brought up by tribal officials in the listening session last Thursday. Tribal leaders are talking about ways to strengthen their jurisdiction over our children. We were very dismayed at the suggested ICWA changes.

Some of the upsetting points of change requested by tribal leaders and their attorneys are listed here. I have summarized reasons for our objections in italics.
1. ‘Make it easier to transfer children to tribal court’ – (Thus harder for families such as ours to protect themselves)

2. ‘Tribal decisions concerning eligiblity should be conclusive’ – (Dominating the feelings and decisions of the birth family, who might have purposefully left the reservation system due to prevalent crime and corruption. Parents and primary caregivers should have the final say as to whether their children are enrolled.)

3. ‘A tribal committee should make revisions to the guidelines and those guidelines should become binding law.’ – (Despite the legislative record, which shows that the guidelines were never meant to be binding. Further – ALL stakeholders should be invited to the table, not just those who have a financial and power stake in having possession of our children.)

3. ‘Make it easier for kids to be eligible. Allow for combining the heritage from two different tribes to help a child reach eligibility.’ – (We are obviously talking about children here who are primarily of non-native heritage. Are tribal governments grasping at straws to keep control over other people’s children?)

4. ‘Require complete ancestry charts for BOTH parents’ – (No tribal government has any right to see my ancestry chart. I am not a tribal member – they have no right to demand any of my personal documents or a right to inspect my lineage.)

5. ‘Eliminate all language referring to “delay” being a problem, the advanced stage of proceedings, or the undue hardship of transferring to tribal court.’ – (OUR children have a right to be respected and protected. There are laws in every state limiting how long a child must wait for permanency BECAUSE it is well documented that children have an emotional need stable and permanent homes as soon as possible. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, our children are no different from any other child in America. It is extremely racist to claim that OUR children are somehow different than other kids and do NOT need permanence as early. What this is essentially saying is that it is okay if children of heritage have their lives disrupted and pulled apart – it doesn’t matter how long they cry or pine for the people they knew and loved best – because they are not as important or valued by our government as other children are. Our government is willing to deeply hurt our children simply because they have Native American heritage. Does the government consider them not as worth protecting as other children?)

6. ‘No more talk about a child not being connected to the tribe – as if the child isn’t “Indian” enough. Eliminate use of the Indian Child Doctrine nationally.’ – ( It is extremely racist for tribal governments to claim that they know my child, who they have never met, better than I do – and that it is more important for my child to be connected to the tribe than it is for my child to have a permanent, safe, and stable home. It is extremely offensive for Tribal leaders to make racist statements like this – completely denying the rights and feelings of non-Indian families as well as Indian families who have purposefully distanced themselves from the reservation system.)

7. ‘Acknowledge that a parent who has not had custody is still a parent with continuing custody.’ – (Would this acknowledgment apply to non-Indian parents as well? Will the government consider the non-Indian mother in Michigan as one with ‘continuing custody,’ even though the tribal court has ripped her 13-yr-old daughter away from her – against the daughter’s wishes? Or is the suggestion that only non-custodial parents of tribal heritage will always be considered a custodial parent? Why? Does the U.S. government continue to view U.S. citizens of native heritage as somehow incapable? Is there an underlying racist notion that parents of heritage are somehow different than their non-native counterparts – despite the vast majority of citizens of tribal heritage living average, mainstream lives off the reservation? To many parents of heritage who choose to live outside of Indian Country, it is offensive that our government continues to pigeon hole people. Further, to non-native parents of eligible children, it is appalling anyone would suggest the other parent be considered to have had custody simply due to a percentage of heritage. Parents without custody are non-custodial parents, period.)

8. ’24-months isn’t long enough for some parents. ex – One dad wasn’t the one with custody because most young children are raised by the mothers and so it is not his fault. He wasn’t responsible for the current situation and needs more time.’ – (The best interest of the child – the need for permanence, safety and stability – needs to be of utmost importance. The needs of Dads who haven’t been in the picture – many times by choice, although they might regret it later – must be secondary. Our society needs all parents, no matter the heritage, to be responsible and accountable, not blaming. We need to make the emotional needs of individual children priority and quit making excuses for adults who should know better.)

9. ‘What one culture deems normal, another culture might not.’ – (This is true. But many ICWA workers seem to ignore the cultural norm an individual child has been raised in – as well as ignore any other heritage of the child – for the sake of the culture tribal leaders and ICWA workers deem necessary and solely important. This appears to happen even when a child has been completely raised and feels comfortable in an alternate culture. Among many ICWA workers, there appears to be a complete disregard and even antagonism for the equally good and acceptable cultures many children living outside of the reservation system have been comfortable with.)

10. ‘States should be required to give the tribal gov’ts a list of all their licensed foster homes so they tribal gov’t can identify preferred families.’ – (Foster families have a right to privacy. This expectation and demand is frightening.)

The following are a list of proposed ICWA changes we would like to see:

1. Children of tribal heritage should be guaranteed protection equal to that of any other child in the United States.
a) Children should never be moved suddenly from a home that is safe, loved, and where they are emotionally, socially and physically comfortable simply because their care-givers are not of a certain heritage. The best interest of the child should be considered first, above the needs of the tribal community.
b) State health and welfare requirements for foster and adoptive children should apply equally to all. If there is proven evidence of emotional and/or physical neglect, the state has an obligation to that child’s welfare and should be held accountable if the child is knowingly or by Social Service neglect left in unsafe conditions. ( – Title 42 U.S.C 1983)

2. Fit parents, no matter their heritage, have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage and superseding wishes of tribal government. US Supreme Court decisions upholding family autonomy under 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection include Meyer vs. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Brown v. Board of Education.

3. The “Existing Indian Family Doctrine” must be available to families and children that choose not to live within the reservation system.
a) In re Santos Y, the court found “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…” Santos y quoted from Bridget R.’s due process and equal protection analysis at length. Santos also states, Congress considered amending the ICWA to preclude application of the “existing Indian family doctrine” but did not do so.”
b) In Bridget R., the court stated, “if the Act applies to children whose families have no significant relationship with Indian tribal culture, such application runs afoul of the Constitution in three ways:
— it impermissibly intrudes upon a power ordinarily reserved to the states,
— it improperly interferes with Indian children’s fundamental due process rights respecting family relationships; and
— on the sole basis of race, it deprives them of equal opportunities to be adopted that are available to non-Indian children and exposes them…to having an existing non-Indian family torn apart through an after the fact assertion of tribal and Indian-parent rights under ICWA”.
c) In re Alexandria Y., the court held that “recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA” and held that the trial court had acted properly in refusing to apply ICWA “because neither [child] nor [mother] had any significant social, cultural, or political relationship with Indian life; thus, there was no existing Indian family to preserve.” Question: If current ICWA case law includes many situations where existing Family Doctrine has already been ignored, then have serious constitutional flaws already occurred?

4. United States citizens, no matter their heritage, have a right to fair trials.
a) When summoned to a tribal court, parents and legal guardians, whether enrolled or not, have to be told their rights, including 25 USC Chapter 21 § 1911. (b) “Transfer of proceedings [to tribal jurisdiction] …in the absence of good cause to the contrary, [and] objection by either parent…”
b) The rights of non-member parents must be upheld: for example; 25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions “Permanent Placement” (1) (iv) “shall not include a placement based … upon an award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody to one of the parents.
c) Non-members have to be able to serve county and state summons to tribal members within reservation boundaries and must have access to appeal.
d) Under the principles of comity: All Tribes and States shall accord full faith and credit to a child custody order issued by the Tribe or State of initial jurisdiction consistent within the UCCJA – which enforces a child custody determination by a court of another State – unless the order has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2 of the UCCJA.

5. Adoptive Parents need well defined protections. These are the citizens among us that have been willing to set aside personal comforts and take in society’s neediest children. Adoptive parents take many risks in doing this, the least of which is finances. People build their lives around family. Adoptive parents risk not only their own hearts, but the hearts of any birth children they have as well as the hearts of their extended family. These parents have an investment in the families they are building and have a right to know that they can put their names on the adoption paper with confidence. If we, as a society, continue to abuse these parents, we will find fewer people willing to take the risk of adoption and more and more children will languish in foster homes.

6. A “Qualified expert witness” should be someone who is able to advocate for the well being of the child, first and foremost: a professional person who has substantial education and experience in the area of the professional person’s specialty and significant knowledge of and experience with the child, his family, and the culture, family structure, and child-rearing practices the child has been raised in.

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 “eligible” children, rather than “enrolled” children?
a) 25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions: (4) ”Indian child” means any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either
b) member of an Indian tribe or
c) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe;

However;
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. So IS it then the blood relationship that determines membership? Bridget R., 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?
5. 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.
6. 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.

Thank you for listening to all the stakeholders – including us.

Tom Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations

 Comments Off on Tom Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations
Apr 042014
 
Tom Sullivan - Regional Administrator ACF

> From: “Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)” > Date: April 4, 2014 at 10:45:46 AM CDT
> To: “Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)”
> Cc: “Greenberg, Mark (ACF)” , “Chang, Joo Yeun (ACF)” , “Sparks, Lillian (ACF)” , “Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF)” , “Murray, James (ACF)”
> Subject: CB team to Spirit Lake
>
> Ms. Mcmullen:
>
> Thank you for your email response to my questions.
>
> You have assembled quite an impressive team to go to Spirit Lake. I am confident that team will be able to put together equally impressive “guidance to the tribe on what steps they need to take to establish a functional child welfare system.”
>
> Two aspects of this effort are of concern to me. First, it is unfortunate that this effort comes almost 22 months after my First Mandated Report was filed on June 14, 2012. Spirit Lake Social Services (TSS) was in disarray then and has not improved its capacity to respond to the child welfare needs of its youngest citizens in the interim despite claims to the contrary by the state, BIA, DOJ and the leadership of ACF.
>
> Second, there is no mention of any effort to evaluate the current condition of those 100+ children I wrote about in that First Report who had been placed in the full-time care and custody of abusers, addicts and rapists. That number has probably more than doubled in the intervening 22 months as more children were removed from their biological homes by TSS or BIA staff. How many of these 200+ children are being tortured in the same manner as the six children removed from their grandmother’s home in Grand Forks and reported in the online edition of the Grand Forks Herald on the evening of March 20, 2014? How many are being raped like that 13 year old little girl who I first brought to your attention more than 100 days ago? That young girl’s claims of rape have still not been investigated by the BIA more than 3 months after this situation was first reported to the Spirit Lake tribal chair and council, the BIA and you. It is my understanding this little girl remains in the same placement available to be raped daily by a Level Three Registered Sex Offender. Why is the statutory rape of this little girl, an enrolled tribal member, allowed to continue by the tribal chair and council?
>
> The delays in removing these children from those abusive homes have been caused by the libel and slander directed at my sources and me. These delays are unconscionable because they required and continue to require all of these Spirit Lake children to remain in the care and custody of abusers and rapists, available to be tortured and/or raped daily. Are there any people at Spirit Lake or in North Dakota with a conscience?
>
> One former senior tribal employee has recently reported to one of my sources that when she started working for the tribe she was told by her supervisor that everything we were reporting were lies. She told my source, “Now, I not only know you weren’t lying, but I also know that all of you have been understating the facts. It is far worse for kids at Spirit Lake than anything you have been saying.”
>
> I understand this former senior tribal employee briefed the tribal chair in these same terms several weeks ago. Since he knew our reports were being characterized as “understatements” and that, “It is far worse for the kids at Spirit Lake than anything (we) have been saying.”, why has he taken no action to help those Spirit Lake children escape the grip of those who abuse and rape them?
>
> The second paragraph of your March 31, 2014 email seems to seek to minimize ACF’s role at Spirit Lake.
>
> ACF’s 2014 Strategic Plan released almost a month ago states on page one, “….we seek to advance a set of key goals:” followed by five statements of goals, which read:
>
> * “Promote economic health and social well-being for individuals, families and communities;
> * Promote healthy development and school readiness for children, especially those in low income families;
> * Promote safety and well-being of children, youth and families;
> * Support underserved and underrepresented populations; and
> * Upgrade the capacity of ACF to make a difference for families and communities.”
>
>
> Minimizing ACF’s role at Spirit Lake within the context of this statement contradicts the entire purpose of ACF’s 2014 Strategic Plan and makes no sense unless you are attempting to avoid addressing the epidemic of child sexual abuse and child/youthful suicide at Spirit Lake. Why would any responsible government leader wish to avoid dealing with such widespread dysfunction that is well-known to have disastrous consequences for children, their families and communities? To do so would effectively negate every one of the “key goals” from ACF’s own 2014 Strategic Plan, at least at Spirit Lake. Is that what you intend?
>
> You ask for some information from me to assist you as you prepare for this visit.
>
> I find this especially ironic since when you were claiming I was misrepresenting the facts at Spirit Lake, that conditions there were not nearly as bad as I claimed and that the BIA and DOJ claims they had investigated every one of my allegations and most were unfounded or false, no one from ACF asked me for any information to corroborate my Reports or provided me with an opportunity to rebut those self-serving claims.
>
> First, you ask for a list of the steps I have taken to assist the tribe to improve their child welfare system.
>
> When I first learned that all tribes in North Dakota were operating their child welfare systems with caseload ratios of as few as 50 – 60 cases per worker to as many as 100 – 120 cases per worker, I met with the child welfare directors from four of the reservations in North Dakota and encouraged them to begin moving closer to a caseload ratio of 20 – 30 cases per worker. They claimed they had been trying to move in that direction but were refused funding every time the subject came up. They realized they were, in many cases, not compliant with state and federal regulations due to inadequate staffing and were quite fearful of the potential financial penalties that might follow if they did not become compliant.
>
> Because of the criminal corruption which continues to dominate the Spirit Lake Child Welfare program, attracting qualified social workers will be next to impossible. Until the leadership of Spirit Lake convinces the public that their CW program is operating and will continue to operate with integrity and transparency, social worker recruitment will be extremely difficult. Only by prosecuting all of those who are abusing, neglecting and raping Spirit Lake children will the public understand that Spirit Lake CW program is no longer controlled by the criminally corrupt. Until that image is implanted in the public perception of Spirit Lake, TSS and BIA will be forced to attempt to address these significant issues with few, if any, qualified social work staff.
>
> I regularly met with the leadership of the ND Department of Human Resources to encourage them to increase their support for their tribal child welfare programs. While these meetings were friendly, the Department was unwilling to increase the money made available to the tribes for any purpose. In late 2010 I met with the Spirit Lake Tribal council members, pointed out the problem with inadequate funding for their child welfare operations and encouraged them to lead an effort to increase tribal funding for their CW operations. They took no action that I am aware of and elections soon replaced the tribal Chair with Mr. Yankton.
>
> In 2008 Spirit Lake’s director of social services told me he had 46 cases of reported, investigated and confirmed child sexual abuse that had been referred to the US Attorney. He said “None are being investigated and none are being prosecuted.” I encouraged him that, as difficult as it was, he should keep referring confirmed cases to the US Attorney for prosecution. I understand he did but there was no action from that US Attorney or his successor to correct this failure to investigate and prosecute serious crimes..
>
> I have filed 13 Mandated Reports, many of which dealt with the inadequate response of law enforcement to crime on Spirit Lake. I would have filed many more if Acting Assistant Secretary Sheldon had not illegally prohibited me from doing so and if Acting Assistant Secretary Greenberg had not, by his silence, apparently endorsed Mr. Sheldon’s actions.
>
> I have reached out to partner with non-governmental entities in the development and presentation of educational programs focused on the recognition of, prevention of and rehabilitation from child abuse in Indian Country. These programs have been targeted to child welfare staff working on reservations. The National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse (NCPCA) has been especially generous with their time and resources. They have already provided or will be providing, at no cost to either ACF or DHHS, multi-day training sessions on this subject matter in the following Indian Country locations all across this country: Casper, WY; Browning, MT; Aberdeen, SD; Nampa, ID; Albuquerque, NM; Tulalip, WA; Santa Fe, NM; Pojoague, NM; Yankton, SD; Houghton, MI; and Muscatine, IA. Of the 11 locations identified where presentations will be made, only four are in Region 8, less than 40% of these sessions. While concerned about conditions in Region 8, my efforts have also been focused on the larger community in need of training. Those who have participated in these sessions have been very complimentary about their skill development following their participation in these sessions.
>
> Before limitations were placed on my ability to address issues like the twin epidemics of child sexual abuse and child/youthful suicide in Indian Country by the leadership of ACF, I spoke frequently to groups in North Dakota, in the other states in this region and all around this country about these issues. In fact, until I first spoke about these issues in 2006, no one had ever dared mention the subject publicly. Convinced the silence protected the predators and harmed children, I decided to make this an issue whenever I could. American Indian audiences were initially put off by my frankness but as they understood my efforts were focused not on stigmatizing them but on finding ways to address these epidemics, bringing resources to begin correcting this situation and bringing healing to their children, I began to receive more invitations to speak on these topics.
>
> Since those limitations were placed on me requiring me to get clearance from ACF leadership for any speech I wished to give and since that clearance always involved censorship, removing all substance from my proposed speeches, I have refused to accept speaking engagements where I could not speak honestly about conditions in Indian Country.
>
> Second, you ask me to provide a summary of anything I have learned “from other tribes…. that faced similar challenges….List any best practices for establishing a strong child welfare system and any contacts I have that could be resources for……Spirit Lake”
>
> That is a mouthful and would take essentially a Doctoral dissertation to answer completely. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do that if I am to meet your deadline. I plan, however, at a later date and on my own time to write several books.
>
> Every reservation I have been on, and I have been on most in this region as well as several others outside of this region, are characterized by crushing poverty, many times higher than the rate for the general population. Unemployment levels for generations have been and continue to run at levels not seen in the majority community even during the Great Depression. Alcohol and drug use and abuse are rampant. This abuse is so prevalent that many reservation residents around the Bakken formation cannot qualify for oil field employment because they cannot pass pre-employment drug and alcohol screening. Law enforcement is, on most reservations, non-existent with few officers, little training and little or no professionalism. Domestic violence and rape are rampant. Because children are placed in foster homes of uncertain safety, many children removed from their biological parents when they were drunk, have been placed in homes where they are raped daily, not just at Spirit Lake but on every reservation in this country. What do rapists have to fear when there is no effective law enforcement? Many of these sexually abused children, seeing no hope to escape this horrific abuse realizing the adults who are supposed to protect them will not, choose to end their own lives. On every reservation service needs are high and resources available to respond to those needs are limited.
>
> I am not aware of any “best practices for establishing a strong child welfare system”. I am confident Ms. Kennerson and the leadership of the Children’s Bureau are fully aware of such “best practices” if any are in place. Child safety should be emphasized in every decision made in any child welfare system. Nearly three year old Laurynn Whiteshield died at the hands of an abusive, step grandmother whose history of abuse of her own children was well-known to the BIA caseworkers who placed Laurynn and her twin sister in that home. I understand that another young man died in that same home less than two weeks ago. The step grandmother is reported to be in prison serving a lengthy sentence. Who is responsible for this young man’s death?
>
> Third, you ask for “a list of national and local partners….who could provide financial, training or technical assistance to Spirit Lake moving forward”.
>
> May I suggest all of the members of your team read my 13 Mandated Reports. If you had, you would understand that on pages 5 and 6 of my First Mandated Report, filed on June 14, 2012, at items D – H there is a list of some of those organizations and my suggestions on how they might be used to begin addressing the issues at Spirit Lake.
>
> The former Executive Director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, Ms. Suzanna Tiapula, should also be involved in any effort to address the criminal corruption at Spirit Lake.
>
> Fourth, you ask for a “list of stakeholders or advocates who can be brought to the table to help Spirit Lake protect their children.”
>
> On January 20, 2014 I provided Ms. Kennerson, by email, with detailed contact information for my primary sources at Spirit Lake. I did so at her request and with the understanding she would be contacting some or all of them during her trip to Spirit Lake scheduled to take place before the end of January. In speaking with my sources, none have been contacted by her. I assume Ms. Kennerson still has that email and can make this information available to you.
>
> Whether my sources will be willing to speak with any of you remains to be seen after the disrespectful manner you treated one of them on a telephone call two weeks ago. That was bad enough but then, in a subsequent email, you lied not only about what you said and did but also about what my source said and did during that telephone call.
>
> It would be well for you to consider the words of Marvin Bower, Managing Partner at McKinsey & Company for almost twenty years who, in the ‘Will to Lead’ wrote, “Leadership scholars are virtually unanimous in putting trustworthiness at the top of the list of qualities required by any leader. Trustworthiness is integrity in action….Integrity is honesty carried…….into action so that the person is completely honest. That kind of integrity I put above all else as an essential of leadership.”
>
> I do not “…feel that (my) previous emails regarding Spirit Lake have not been answered”. I know it for a fact. In a later email I will provide chapter and verse on each of those unanswered emails.
>
> Thomas F. Sullivan
>
> Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver
>
> From: Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM
> To: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)
> Cc: Murray, James (ACF)
> Subject: RE: CB team to Spirit Lake
>
> ACF is looking forward to a productive visit to Spirit Lake next week. Joo Chang will lead a team that includes Lillian Sparks, Marilyn Kennerson and me, and it is our goal to provide guidance to the tribe on what steps they need to take to establish a functional child welfare system.
>
> As you know, our jurisdiction here is limited. ACF, through the Children’s Bureau, provides funding and guidance to states, tribes and localities for child welfare agencies. States and Tribes have legal jurisdiction over their courts and agencies and we have no jurisdiction to intervene on individual cases.
>
> We do want to do everything we can within our defined role, however. To that end, we need your assistance to prepare for this visit.
>
> Specifically, please:

> – Provide a detailed list of the steps you have taken as Regional Administrator to assist the tribe to improve their child welfare system. Please include the status of each action and any outcomes of those actions.
>
> – Provide a summary of anything you have learned from other tribes you may have had contact with that faced similar challenges. List any best practices for establishing a strong tribal child welfare system, and any contacts you may have that could be resources for Spirit Lake.
>
> – A list of national and local partners (philanthropies, universities, etc.) who could provide financial, training or technical assistance to Spirit Lake moving forward.
>
> – A list of any other stakeholders or advocates who can be brought to the table to help Spirit Lake protect their children.
>
> Please send this report by noon Eastern time on Friday, April 4 so that it can be included with briefing materials for the team. Please also include your primary point of contact at Spirit Lake, or any other contacts there we should be aware of.
>
> I am sorry you feel that your previous emails regarding Spirit Lake have not been answered; that is not what my records reflect.
>
> After the ACF team visit to Spirit Lake, I will let you know of any need for follow-up on your part.
>
> From: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 5:35 PM
> To: Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)
> Subject: Re: CB team to Spirit Lake
>
> Ms. Mcmullen:
>
> Thank you for your email notification about the Childrens Bureau team visit to Spirit Lake on April 9 – 11, 2014.
>
> I have some questions concerning this visit: 1. What are the names of those who will be part of this team? 2. Who will be the team leader? 3. What will be the expected outcome of this team’s visit to Spirit Lake? 4. What written instructions will be provided to that team? 5. May I receive a copy of those instructions?
>
> I have raised many questions about Spirit Lake to you over the last 21 months, all documented in agency email. Few, if any, have been answered. I trust I will not have to add this email to the “unanswered” file.
>
> Thomas F. Sullivan
> Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver
>
>
> From: Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF)
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 04:27 PM
> To: Sullivan, Thomas (ACF)
> Subject: CB team to Spirit Lake
>
>
> Hello Tom:
>
> I wanted to let you know that the Children’s Bureau is planning a team visit to Spirit Lake April 9-11. The ACF team will talk to various stakeholders, tribal child welfare staff, judges and others. They will use the information gathered to provide clear guidance to the Tribe on what steps need to be taken to establish a successful child welfare agency.
>
> Marrianne McMullen
> Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
> Administration for Children and Families
> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
> 901 D. St., SW, Washington, DC 20447
> (202) 401-9215
> marrianne.mcmullen@acf.hhs.gov
> www.acf.hhs.gov

April – National Child Abuse Month. NICWA & Child Abuse

 Comments Off on April – National Child Abuse Month. NICWA & Child Abuse
Apr 012014
 
Jose Rodrigues 2005 - a Victim of the Indian Child Welfare Act

While we appreciate most efforts do something to address the severe abuse and neglect occurring on many reservations, we do not believe NICWA is willing to address the core of the problems. “Raising awareness” by sending packets to ICWA offices isn’t going to change anything – and hasn’t to date.

Further, continually blaming non-Indians – from past, present and future – will never stop child abuse. It is more likely to increase the abuse, because it allows abusers to play the victim and point the blame at someone else. As long as an abuser never has to take personal responsibility, they have no reason or impetus to change.

Reading the information NICWA has put on the website concerning their minor efforts to combat child abuse – while at the same time spouting additional misinformation and blame – it appears to be nothing more than a “fluff” effort – a show of effort – rather than a real effort to help children.

http://www.nicwa.org/child_abuse_prevention/

.

Abused children, reported by Tom Sullivan 2 yrs ago, were ignored by officials

 Comments Off on Abused children, reported by Tom Sullivan 2 yrs ago, were ignored by officials
Mar 212014
 
children abuses

Senator Heitkamp,

I was just informed that the family in the Grand Forks story below is one of the families ACF Administrator Tom Sullivan included in his first Mandated Report, 21 months ago. That report, along with 13 subsequent reports, was ignored by his DC superiors and well as other officials.

These children in the story below were among the 40 children he had reported removed from safe off reservation care and placed with dangerous relatives on the reservation.

This appears to be one of the cases which US attorney Tim Purdon, ACF Director George Sheldon, Indian Affairs staffer Kenneth Martin and others said Mr. Sullivan was misconstruing at best – lying about at worst.

According to the person who informed me – These women will be prosecuted because they moved off the reservation and continued to abuse these children. If they were still living on the Spirit Lake Reservation, all of this would have been ignored by BIA law enforcement.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/grand-forks-woman-charged-felony-abuse-grandchildren

Again – we don’t need another 3-year task force to tell us again what we all know beyond a doubt to be true – particularly one that will be purposefully stacked with the same type of thinkers who put children into this position in the first place.

A study was concluded a few months ago by the DOJ and Senator Dorgan is currently doing a tour. Reports on the hearings Senator Dorgan has been holding include story after story of abuse.

Let me remind you again that my extended family is among the abused – and no one has yet been prosecuted for the shooting of my husband’s grandson at Spirit Lake in July 2013.

Our fear is that Senator Dorgan’s concluding report will simply call for MORE money to be given to corrupt tribal entities who are using our children as chattel.

What is needed is for laws to be enforced and children protected. Stop the waste of money and time and protect the kids.

– Further: Please hold actual oversight hearings concerning allegations that the BIA, FBI, ACF and US Attorney’s offices are ignoring the abuse of children. Either prove Mr. Sullivan is wrong that federal officials have been throwing children under the bus – or apologize to him for the way he has been treated by DC superiors.
I have been away from DC for a few months visiting families across the United States, but will be returning to DC shortly to continue our push for relevant and immediate action.

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

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

MN Teens Ask Us About ICWA –

 Comments Off on MN Teens Ask Us About ICWA –
Mar 202014
 

A couple 8th grade students wrote to us, asking for information concerning the ICWA. This was my response…

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Elizabeth Morris
Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:12 AM
Subject: The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
To:

Hello, Cecilia.

I am happy to help two students from northern Minnesota. I was raised in the Twin Cities and my husband, Roland John Morris, Sr., was a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe – Leech Lake. He passed away in 2004.

Although he was born and raised near Cass Lake, spoke only Ojibwe until he started kindergarten, and was raised practicing many traditions, he was very opposed to tribal government control over him and his family. He believed that many tribal governments are deeply corrupt and are harming people more than they are helping them. He believed the Indian Child Welfare Act was particularly harmful to children and families – and was opposed to tribal government having any jurisdiction over his children or grandchildren.

He went to Washington DC many times to talk to Congressmen about how tribal governments were hurting people. The last time he went was just three weeks before he passed away. His doctor told him not to go, but it is what he wanted to do.

I will tell you what we know of the ICWA.

Almost twenty years ago, a six-year-old boy and his five-year-old sister searched for breakfast while the adults in the house slept off the previous night’s party. He was used to having to care for his four younger siblings. Many times it had been his job to keep them all in the bedroom while adults were enjoying themselves in other areas. During those frequent parties, according to the boy, they weren’t allowed out of the room except to go to the bathroom. Although He was enrolled in the first grade and his sister was enrolled in kindergarten, they rarely made it to school, their hair was infested with lice, and their parents sold the baby’s formula to support their drug habit.

On this morning, instead of finding cereal, the two small children found “long guns” in the cupboard. No, despite the behavior of the adults in his life, he didn’t shoot his sister. However, a social worker commented later that had these children been of white or black heritage, they would have been removed from that home a long time earlier. But because they were of Indian heritage, they were not allowed the same protection that other children would have received.

Thirteen years ago, a teenage girl from Leech Lake, angry at the world because she had been taken from a safe, happy home and placed with dangerous relatives because of the ICWA, went along with her boyfriend to do violence against the very people she loved most and felt safest with. http://www.startribune.com/local/190953261.html?refer=y

On June 11, 1999, a non-tribal mother was given 30 minutes notice to show up in Red Lake Tribal Court to defend her legal custody of her children. Not having any time to obtain counsel, she stood by helplessly as the court transferred physical custody of all three children to the man that had fathered the youngest two. The man, who was a tribal member, then turned around and obtained an order to forcibly remove her from the reservation. On June 13, she was served the order to get off the reservation and wasn’t given any time to return home to get clothes and possessions.

In November of 1999, an 8-year-old Brenda Swearington was beaten to death by her great uncle, whom she, along with her siblings, was placed with under the Indian Child Welfare Act. According to a court transcript, the uncle was quoted as saying, “I just lost my temper. Hit her, kicked her too hard when she wasn’t doing what she was supposed to be doing.” A witness stated having seen him pick the little girl up by her throat, “put her against the wall, let go of her, kicked her.”

According to the Native American Press, after the child’s death, other relatives begged the Leech Lake Reservation to pull out of the ICWA program, blaming the program’s priorities and staff for the little girl’s murder. One relative stated that if the ICWA staff had actually looked at the record of the great Uncle and Aunt, they should never have been chosen as caregivers.

Kayla, a fifth grader raised by her non-tribal aunt since she was 8 months old, wanted to stay in the only home she ever knew. She wanted to stay in Kentucky and continue with her basketball and cheerleading. But in 1994, the North Dakota Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued. A reporter wrote for the Associated Press that the tribe was needed her because they were struggling to keep their cultural heritage and identity intact. In that same article, a representative of a group called NARF estimated that 1.96 million people of Indian ancestry live off the reservations. He said that puts the tribal courts at a disadvantage in custody cases. This is the true purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act: to return children to the reservation for the tribal government’s benefit. All Kayla wanted was for life to go back to normal.

Around 1996, A young South Dakota mother was diagnosed with cancer. Wanting her three children raised in a better way than she had, she moved off the reservation and began going to a Christian church. Feeling so strongly about how destructive her life on the reservation had been, she refused to enroll her children or have them involved in tribal programs including “Head Start.” She also asked a friend to care for her children once she passed on. But before a legal will could be written, she died suddenly from a heart attack.

The State Court turned the children over to the tribe as mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act, pulling them out of school and away from non-tribal relatives and friends and placing them into foster care on the reservation. Although an Indian/white couple that lived off the reservation was interested in adopting the children, the tribal court chose instead to leave them in a reservation foster home. During the process, a lawyer for the tribe confided that in this tribe of about five thousand members, they had about one thousand children in foster care.

On Jan 6, 2000 — more than 2 years from their first notice that “Carl” was living with non-Indians off the reservation — a tribal council voted to gain custody of the child, seeking to “protect his Native American heritage.” The tribal resolution indicated a transfer is more in the interest of the tribe than “Carl” when it stated; “Whereas, the Tribal Council has determined that there is no resource more vital to the continued existence and integrity of this Tribe than its children.”

However, the birth mother, an enrolled tribal member, voluntarily placed her baby in foster care with the county when he was 18 months old and told caseworkers she was opposed to her tribe’s intervention and that she had no ties to the tribe. The tribe subsequently declined jurisdiction, and continued to waive involvement over the next two years. The baby was placed in a white home. According to Carl’s custodial mother, “One problem we’re encountering is that when some of these people hear “ICWA” they just want to lay down and give up.”

This same scenario continues to be played out across America on a daily basis. Children who had never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs – including multi-racial children with extremely minimal blood quantum – have been removed from homes they know and love and placed with strangers chosen by tribal social services.

We hear story after story of children being used and abused by the system under the Indian Child Welfare Act, while tribal and federal authorities look the other way and pretend it isn’t happening. Everyone is too afraid to step on the toes of tribal government.

It is claimed that the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978 in effort to help prevent Native-American tribes and families from losing children to non-Native homes through foster care and adoption. We believe that was the story given to sell the bill to the American people, but evidence in the legislative record indicates that the real reason might have always been more about power and money than about helping kids.

The Act is now harming children all across the country as courts and tribes place culture and tribal sovereignty above children’s basic needs for permanency and stability.

1) Some Children have been removed from safe, loving homes and placed into dangerous situations.
2) Some families, Indian and non-Indian, have felt threatened by tribal government. Some have had to mortgage homes and endure lengthy legal processes to protect their children.
3) Equal opportunities for adoption, safety and stability are not always available to children of all heritages.
4) The constitutional right of parents to make life choices for their children including political associations has been interfered with.
5) The constitutional right for children of Indian heritage to enjoy Equal Protection has in some cases been denied.

Letters from tribal and non-tribal birth parents, extended family, foster parents and pre-adoptive families can be read at https://caicw.org/family-advocacy/letters-from-families-2/

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 hurts children, parents, and caregivers. In addition to preventing children from getting the protection they need when they need it:

– Some Tribal governments have claimed jurisdiction over children that have little tribal heritage and are not enrollable according to their constitutions.
– Some Tribal governments have interfered in custody battles between parents, overturned county decisions in favor of the tribally enrolled parent and ignored child abuse, neglect and drug abuse in those decisions.
– Many county courts and social services back away when ICWA is involved because they can not afford to fight back.
– Several State Governments have given “Full Faith and Credit” to tribal courts and will not review or overturn tribal court custody decisions – no matter clear evidence of child abuse.
– This law requires Federal, State, and Tribal authorities to favor a child’s tribal heritage over their Irish, Afro-American, Scottish, Latino, or Jewish heritage, or any other heritage the child has, no matter the percentages.

We believe the Indian Child Welfare Act is blatantly unconstitutional – a violation of the 10th and 14th amendment. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, intimated in a concurrence he wrote in June, 2013, that he believed it is unconstitutional as well. In agreement with the ruling in the case, “Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl,” he wrote:

‘The ICWA recognizes States’ inherent “jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings,” §1901(5), but asserts that federal regulation is necessary because States “have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families,” ibid.

However, Congress may regulate areas of traditional state concern only if the Constitution grants it such power. Admt. 10 (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).

The threshold question, then, is whether the Constitution grants Congress power to override state custody law whenever an Indian is involved.

(Side note: Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion cited the work of Rob Natelson, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, Independence Institute & Montana Policy Institute. Rob Natelson was a friend to my husband, Roland.)

Dr. William B. Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1989) also stated about the Indian Child Welfare Act:

“… we are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…”

Thank you so much for writing to us to ask about the Indian Child Welfare Act. I hope what I have shared here is helpful. If you have additional questions, please feel free to ask.

Tramping for the Lord

 Comments Off on Tramping for the Lord
Mar 152014
 


CAICW hits the road to advocate for families in their struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
by Elizabeth Sharon Morris

This past October, after a loving friend kindly donated much needed maintenance for my hobbled vehicle, I loaded my car with a few essentials—laptop, camp stove and sleeping bag—and with just a few hundred dollars in pocket, headed south, not knowing exactly where God would lead or how long I’d be gone.

After more than a decade of desk advocacy, along with a few short trips to Washington, D.C., few dents in the system we’ve been fighting have been made. Worse, the stories of abuse have been increasing. If we’re going to fight this bear – it’s going to take more than we’ve been doing.

Three months earlier, I had read Corrie ten Boom’s book, “Tramp for the Lord.” Her faith following her horrific ordeal during the Holocaust was amazing. Her determination to do whatever it took to make a difference was inspiring.

I’d actually felt a need to plunge in fully for a long time. The work involved in this is overwhelming. As many know – I am usually running way behind, trying to catch up. It has been more than I’ve been able to handle while still raising kids and finding ways to pay bills. But the kids are raised now. So – I decided to step out and trust God.

While traveling, I planned to visit families CAICW’s been involved with. The first night out, I stopped to see one of Roland’s relatives in the hospital and spent the night with a niece. I was sadly reminded over the 24 hours just why Roland and I became concerned in the first place.

God is good. The needs for this work have been met in ways we never dreamed. In North Carolina – a dear old friend had a new transmission put in my car and went out of her way to help in other ways as well. I then spent six weeks in Virginia at the home of a wonderful host family and got to know the metro rail into DC pretty well.

While there, CNN broadcast a segment concerning child sexual abuse at Spirit Lake, and ACF Regional Admin Tom Sullivan released a letter admonishing his DC superiors. With these tools in hand, I visited every Senate office and several house members. We created new relationships with some staff members and learned which offices are open to help. We were able to teach various offices about issues in Indian Country – and various offices were able to teach us a few things.

One thing we learned is that having a steady presence is important. Showing up again and again with additional information helps. We also learned that while not all Congressmen are aware of what’s happening in Indian Country, it’s well known among noted agencies that Spirit Lake is a microcosm of what is happening all across Indian Country – ie: The agencies know what is happening at Spirit Lake is widespread in Indian Country. They know – but are playing political games anyway.

While there, I also continued to hear stories from one person or another of horrible things happening to children – right under the eyes of federal government officials. Feeling helpless, the thought coming to mind again and again was “This kind of thing comes out only through prayer and fasting.”

In mid-December, I returned to North Dakota for Christmas, where my kind friend again did an oil change on my car. Having been asked several times by a good friend to come out to California and spend some time praying, I decided to do it – as well as try to catch up on necessary office work before going back to DC.

I have been in California now since mid-January. I have had wonderful times of prayer, working on our database, writing, and putting together a business plan for the Roland J. Morris Sr. Ranch – a place for families to come as a unit for long term help away from drugs and alcohol. I’ve also been reading three books – “Blessing Your Spirit,” (Devotional) “Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow” (10 sermons by Pastors during the Holocaust, including Bonhoeffer) and “Fatal Link” (The epidemic of fetal alcohol in America, in particular within many reservation communities).

In California, two handsome men spent days and nights in their garage, donating tons more needed maintenance on my vehicle. I’ll be leaving California with practically a new car at the beginning of March. While traveling back to DC, I will stop to see families along the way as well as look at potential properties for the RJM Ranch. I plan to be back in DC in late April. There are many things I’ll write about along the way – posting to our blog page at caicw.org.

I urge you, family and friends, to share this information and encourage others to join in the ongoing struggle. The struggle and battle is so much larger than Roland and I even imagined when we embarked on this mission many years ago. But God is good and amazing things are happening. Please join us.

Thursday, November 21, 2013, in DC –

I had a discouraging meeting that morning. A senior staffer in Indian Affairs office was calling Tom Sullivan a liar. I think he thought maybe I didn’t know one way or the other – like I had just picked up Sullivan’s reports and decided to use them. He told me Tom no longer worked at that job. I told him, “Yes he does.”

The staffer then said it wasn’t true anyone forbade Tom write any more reports concerning the child abuse. I told him, “I heard it from Mr. Sullivan’s voice to my ear.” Then he said something about how a hearing would prove it isn’t true. I didn’t respond, but wanted to tell him, “Bring it on.”

They ended the meeting with the predictable, “Thank you for the information. We will keep it in consideration.”
After the meeting, I sat in the atrium of the Hart building, discouraged, and thought about what a huge monster this was. Those two people are high up in Indian Affairs and probably reflect exactly what the bulk of the committee really thinks.

If it weren’t for knowing how much God has been helping us – and how God made it amazingly possible for us to be in DC – I would have felt like giving up.

But I didn’t.

Two hours later, I received an email forwarded from Betty Jo. It was from Tom Sullivan to his superiors in DC – written within the hour. Interestingly, it addressed all points of contention in my morning meeting. With a lot of pleasure, I forwarded it to the cynical staffers at Indian Affairs. As far as I can help, our children will NOT be treated as collateral damage in DC’s ongoing political games.

Spirit Lake

 Comments Off on Spirit Lake
Mar 132014
 
Spirit Lake Reservation, North Dakota

February 2013, CAICW attended a Spirit Lake town hall meeting where one member after another stood up to tell the panel of tribal and federal officials tragic stories of how they tried to get the tribal police, BIA and U.S Attorney to help. But criminals continue to roam unchallenged. As tribal members told of continuing abuse of children, officials claimed everything that can be done has been done. “Investigations take time” U.S. Attorney Tim Purdon said over and over.

Tom Sullivan, Regional Administrator of the Administration of Children and Families in Denver, had written report after report to DC detailing the abuse and number of children who’d been removed from safe homes off reservation and placed into dangerous homes – even homes of sexual offenders – at Spirit Lake. At the town hall meeting, Purdon claimed Tom Sullivan “misrepresented the facts.

Yet, while Spirit Lake was under oversight of the BIA, FBI, and Purdon in 2012 and 2013:
• An elder witnessed two young boys doing something unspeakable on her lawn, but despite her many attempts to report it – it was ignored by tribal & federal authorities. The boys are related to a councilman.
• 3-year-old Laurynn Whiteshield was placed in a relative’s home where she was beaten to death in June, 2013.
• Roland Morris’s grandson was shot and left for dead at Spirit Lake in July 2013. No one has been charged, though it is common knowledge he was shot over drugs by relatives who are part of a Minneapolis gang.
In Tom Sullivan’s 12th Mandated Report to the ACF office in DC, February 2013, (https://caicw.org/wp-content/uploads/Twelth-Mandated-Report-Concerning-Suspected-Child-Abuse-on-the-Spirit-Lake-Reservation.htm). he stated:

“In these 8 months I have filed detailed reports concerning all of the following:
– The almost 40 children returned to on-reservation placements in abusive homes, many headed by known sex offenders… These children remain in the full time care and custody of sexual predators available to be raped on a daily basis. Since I filed my first report noting this situation, nothing has been done by any of you to remove these children to safe placements.
– The 45 children who were placed, at the direction of Tribal Social Services (TSS), BIA social workers, BIA supervised TSS social workers and the BIA funded Tribal Court, in homes where parents were addicted to drugs and/or where they had been credibly accused of abuse or neglect…
“…Those adults remain protected by the law enforcement which by its inaction is encouraging the predators to keep on hunting for and raping children at Spirit Lake.

CHILDREN AS CHATTEL:

 Comments Off on CHILDREN AS CHATTEL:
Feb 282014
 

.
Three little boys from South Dakota had been living Nov18286_001 with a wonderful family. The maternal relatives (tribal members) had a great relationship with the foster parents and ceremonially accepted them as part of the family. But the children were moved from that home a few months ago by tribal government. A paternal family member – who had previously shown no interest in the kids – requested custody of the children when it was announced federal government was paying each individual member – including children – a sum of money in a court settlement. Over the last few months since the transfer, several instances of abuse have been documented. The following are comments recently shared by family:

RS: “I am asking no I am begging for —- to undo the wrong he has created and make it right for these babies. I am begging the courts and tribal council to help get these kids to safety, you have the power you need to use it. You can undo the injustice that has been done. These kids are not only the victims of Cathy’s abuse now they are in the presence of their extremely abusive father, please, please, please help us to get these kids to safety before it is too late.”
February 15 at 10:59pm

RS: “Why is no one for our tribe helping these children…..”

BM: “Because the tribal courts, and counsel employees are heartless and don’t care what happens to these 3 lil’ ones. So much for protecting their people. That is a bunch of crap when they all allow the 3 lil’ angels to be taken away by their abuser.”

DB: “Was just informed that she took these children to …California with their abusive father and are being helped by another daughter … And was informed that individuals were rewarded greatly for doing this….wonder who that was ???? How does spilled children’s blood feel on your hands?”

See More about these three in this video clip: https://caicw.org/2014/05/03/three-south-dakota-children-given-to-abuser/#.U2ePZldRzbw

.
Other children in need of prayer:

– – A Spirit Lake grandma sent a picture of her granddaughter and said the girl is living in the home of a sexual offender, but tribal social services won’t do anything about it.
An Oregon Tribe insists on jurisdiction over an unenrollable

– – 7-yr-old boy who was placed with his paternal grandmother by both birth father and mother and had been living with his paternal grandma for 2 years.
This child is NOT eligible for enrollment according to the tribe’s constitution – but tribal government desires to transfer child to maternal grandma, who has a record of abuse.
o The CAICW legal fund paid for a consultation between family members and ICWA attorney Mark Fiddler. The family was able to bring facts to the court room, refuting claims by the tribe.

– – 13-yr-old girl was taken from her non-native birth mother who had custody all her life and given her to enrolled birth father 3 months ago – for no reason other than tribal court decision. The tribe initially made it joint custody and gave him the school year. They’ve now served mom with papers giving the father sole custody.
o The CAICW legal fund paid for a consultation between the mother, her local attorney, and ICWA attorney Mark Fiddler. Unfortunately, she was not able to continue with the local attorney.

– – A 7-yr-old boy taken from his home in Wisconsin just before Christmas and his 7th birthday. His pre-adoptive parents begged he be allowed to attend his scheduled birthday party, but were refused. This was the 3rd time this little boy, who struggles with emotional issues, was removed from this same home due to whimsy of tribal government. The fact this pre-adoptive mom is a tribal member with the very same tribe made no difference. When the boys therapists testified to the emotional damage another move would bring, the tribe’s social services director stated, “Our kids are resilient.”

Many more…

Fact: According to the last two U.S. Census’ – 75% of Native Americans don’t live on the reservations. While some have moved for jobs, schooling, or other reasons and are still supportive of the reservation system, many, like the founder of CAICW, distanced themselves due to the high amount of tribal government corruption, chemical abuse, sexual abuse and other crime.

Fact: Tribal governments benefit financially from increased membership. It is no secret federal dollars for tribes are connected to the U.S. Census and tribal rolls. Abuse happens when you put a price on people’s heads. Abuse happens when humans are put in the position of chattel.

“Native American Groups Seek Child Welfare Probe”

 1 Response »
Feb 212014
 

By GOSIA WOZNIACKA Associated Press Feb 3, 2014, 3:49 PM

Four national Native American organizations on Monday asked the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the treatment of American Indian and Alaska Native children in the private adoption and public child welfare systems, saying civil rights violations there are rampant.

The groups also called for the federal government to take a stronger role in enforcing compliance of the Indian Child Welfare Act. They said in a letter to Jocelyn Samuels, the Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, that there is “minimal federal oversight” over implementation of the law.Corruption at the U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC

The letter follows a recent high-profile custody battle over a Cherokee girl known as Baby Veronica who eventually was adopted by a white South Carolina couple. It also comes amid lawsuits alleging violations of federal law governing foster care and adoptions in some states.

The organizations, which include the Portland-based National Indian Child Welfare Association, alleged in their letter that some guardians appointed by the court mock Native American culture; some state workers put down traditional Native ways of parenting; and some children are placed in white homes when Indian relatives and Native foster care homes are available.

“These stories highlight patterns of behavior that are, at best, unethical and, at worst, unlawful,” the letter states. “Although these civil rights violations are well-known and commonplace, they continue to go unchecked and unexamined.”

The federal government had no an immediate response regarding the allegations.

“We have received the letter and are reviewing the request,” Justice Department spokeswoman Dena W. Iverson said in an email.

Native children are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system nationwide, especially in foster care.

Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 after finding very high numbers of Indian children being removed from their homes by public and private agencies and placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions.

Federal law now requires that additional services be provided to Native families to prevent unwarranted removal. And it requires that Indian children who are removed be placed whenever possible with relatives or with other Native Americans, in a way that preserves their connection with their tribe, community and relatives.

While Native groups agree that the Indian Child Welfare Act has been effective in slowing the removal of Indian children from their families, major challenges remain. And Baby Veronica’s plight has highlighted the matter.

Veronica was born to a non-Cherokee mother, who put her up for adoption. Matt and Melanie Capobianco, a white couple, gained custody of the child in 2009. The baby’s father, a member of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, pressed claims under the Indian Child Welfare Act and won custody when the girl was 27 months old.

But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act didn’t apply because the father, Dusten Brown, had been absent from Veronica’s life before her birth and never had custody of her. In September, Oklahoma’s Supreme Court dissolved an order keeping the girl in the state, and Brown handed her over to the Capobiancos.

In addition to that case, the letter cites problems such as adoption agencies disregarding children’s tribal affiliation and failing to provide notice to a tribe when a child is taken into custody. The groups also contend Indian children are transported across state lines to sidestep the law; adoption attorneys encourage circumvention of the law; and judges deny tribes a presence during child custody proceedings.

Another problem, according to Craig Dorsay, an Oregon lawyer who works on many Native child welfare cases, is inconsistencies in identifying who is an Indian child and who is not — and whether the law applies to families who are deemed not Indian enough in the eyes of a court.

http://news.yahoo.com/native-american-groups-seek-child-welfare-probe-231739952.html

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

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

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

February 11, 2014

Ms. McMullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas F. Sullivan

Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver

Page 5
Letter to McMullen 021114.docx

February Giveaway ~ :)

 Comments Off on February Giveaway ~ :)
Feb 012014
 

.
ENTER TO WIN:

Video Documentary: Dying in Indian Country explains how welfare, federal Indian policy, the BIA and corrupt tribal governments are largely responsible for the destruction of families, while non-governmental solutions can bring genuine hope and change.

Booklet: “Our Living God is a Missionary God” is a colorful explanation of our Missionary God for children ages 9-11.

Enter more than once! Multiple entry options available – the form will guide you through them.

Further, NO obligations required for entry.

For example, you do not need to answer any questions, nor need you connect to Facebook.

Connection to social networks are not necessary but are merely suggestions to earn additional entries in the Giveaway. Simply click “Skip” and move on if you wish – or participate in the suggestions for additional entry points. 🙂

(The suggested video is only 40 seconds long ~ )

.
.

What is Racism?

 Comments Off on What is Racism?
Jan 232014
 

What is racism?
According to the ‘Merriam-Webster Dictionary’ – racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

According to the ‘Concise Encyclopedia,’ racism is “Any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races,” that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some “races” are innately superior to others. …The idea of race was invented to magnify the differences between people … Racism differs from ethnocentrism in that it is linked to physical and therefore immutable differences among people. Ethnic identity is 3 kidsacquired, and ethnic features are learned forms of behaviour. Race, on the other hand, is a form of identity that is perceived as innate and unalterable. In the last half of the 20th century several conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish). Racism reflects an acceptance of the deepest forms and degrees of divisiveness and carries the implication that differences among groups are so great that they cannot be transcended. ”

The Genome project has proved that there are no – absolutely NO – genes denoting race in the human body. Genes only denote skin color, eye color, hair texture, cheek bones, etc, and these things vary from family to family, not large people group to large people group.

What varies from large people group to large people group is culture and ethnicity. But these things are NOT inherent to a persons genetics. They are learned.

In other words – differences between people are familial, not racial. “Race” doesn’t scientifically exist.

The idea that persons of Native American heritage – or persons of ANY heritage – are inherently one way or another is racism. Pure and simple.

I will not allow disparaging remarks or nonsense about any people group on this page.

It is fine to talk about factual matters and documentable evidence. Selfish people exist in this world and come in all shapes, sizes and backgrounds. The factual needs of children and families is top priority and we WILL call out corruption when we see it.

But when people make disparaging remarks about “Indians” as a group, or hateful remarks about “white people” – it WILL get deleted.

I will also delete nonsense about so-called “split feather” syndrome. Not only is there nothing inherently genetic that could cause such a thing – and it is racist to claim that there is – I have raised too many kids of tribal heritage to be conned into thinking such a thing exists. My kids are no different than kids of any other heritage in the United States.

Hello? There are innumerable reasons for depression, addictions and other mental health issues in this world. A genetic requirement to be in Indian Country isn’t one of them.

Further, it is time to stop blaming the past. Historical racism is only relevant if you want it to be. You can choose to be bigger and better than that. My children of heritage are just as strong, smart, and capable as any other citizen of the United States – and they are NOT perpetual victims, incapable of happiness due to what happened 150 years ago. Shame on anyone to thinks – or teaches – otherwise.

Being proud of roots means being proud of all of ones roots. Most tribal members are less than 50% anishinabe. My husband was of the few left in his generation that were 100% Leech Lake. Very few are today. We have taught our children to be proud of their entire heritage. ALL their ancestors – the ones of good character – are worth admiring and emulating – no matter the heritage.

But God is the only entity worthy of high honor.

This is a true rebuttal of racism – to recognize that heritage is only a data point, not a definition of who a person is. When we allow heritage to define us and our children, we are embracing and upholding racism.

Omnibus Bill Mandates BIA answer to Congress about Child Abuse

 Comments Off on Omnibus Bill Mandates BIA answer to Congress about Child Abuse
Jan 222014
 

THANK YOU, BETTY JO KRENZ & TOM SULLIVAN –

The omnibus bill that was just recently passed and signed by Obama includes language mandating the BIA to “report to the House and Senate Committees of jurisdiction on the progress of its efforts and the adequacy of child placement and judicial review by the tribe and the Bureau. The Secretary [of Interior?] is expected to take all necessary steps to ensure that children at the Spirit Lake Reservation are placed in safe and secure homes.”

Thanks to Betty Jo Krenz, Tom Sullivan, and the others they’ve worked with for having gotten this ship launched. Without them, the atrocities at Spirit Lake would be still just as hidden and ignored as they are on most other reservations.

We are VERY grateful for this omnibus language – but also recognize that it is two sentences in a 286 page appropriations bill. It is our job now to press in and monitor the process, ensuring that these two sentences don’t just fall by the wayside or that mere fluff is offered up and called, “enough.”

We need to encourage our varied friends and relatives to call their respective Congressmen and remind them not only how important is it to protect these kids – but how these issues are much wider spread than just Spirit Lake.

I am working on the newsletter and the blog. I am slow – but we are going to do this. 2014 is going to be a GREAT year for human rights in Indian Country. Thank you for all of you who have been so steadfast in praying the work through!

 Older Entries  Newer Entries