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

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

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

Senator Campbell,

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

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

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

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

What is a Qualified Expert Witness?

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

.
Qualified Expert Witness:

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

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

The Guidelines: D.4. Qualified Expert Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS:

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

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

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

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

Who is the Expert Witness testifying for?
.

Iowa Supreme Court Tossed “Indian Child” Definition

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

.
From:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICWA Case Law & other Authority

 Comments Off on ICWA Case Law & other Authority
May 012010
 

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

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

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

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

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

Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

His answer: Absolutely not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother Wins Fight Against Tribe!!

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

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

By Cy Ryan (contact) Las Vegas Sun

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

* Nevada Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treaties that don’t Exist

 Comments Off on Treaties that don’t Exist
Jul 062009
 

From http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4202#more-4202
June 30th, 2009 by Rob Natelson

“Government agencies and pressure groups campaigning for more taxpayer money can create a fictitious “history” almost overnight. First, they make some claim about how something has been recognized since (whenever), and before you know it, journalists are uncritically repeating it, and it is plastered all over the Internet.

“Recently I’ve seen a burst of allegations that the U.S. government assumed a treaty obligation in 1787 to provide reservation Indians with free health care. If you Google “health care treaty Indian 1787,” you will find a long list of sources – including supposedly objective news stories – making that assertion. Here’s a sample from Montana’s Lee newspapers: “A treaty dating to 1787 requires the government to provide tribal members living on reservations with free health care.”

“Now when presented with such a claim, a journalist’s crap-o-meter should start sounding like a fire alarm, because the claim is so inherently improbable. First, the reservation system as we know it didn’t exist in 1787. Second, the cash-strapped Confederation Congress would not have had the resources to meet such a commitment. (Remember that shortage of funds was one reason Congress called the constitutional convention.) Third, a treaty is a bilateral document – even if the Confederation Congress had committed itself to provide health care to the Delaware tribe, for example, it wouldn’t follow that the government had committed itself to provide health care to all Indians for all time.

“So I checked into the claim and found that — sure enough — it is flatly false. Here are some details:
* According to Charles Kappler’s authoritative collection of treaties between the U.S. Government and Native American tribes, there was no such treaty in 1787. In fact, 1787 was a year in which no U.S.-Indian treaties were signed at all!

* There were over 20 U.S.-Indian treaties before 1800, but none obligated the federal government to provide Indians with health care, free or otherwise.

* The last U.S.-Indian treaty was signed in 1868. Some of the later ones provided that the government would pay annuities to some Indians – but often even this term was left discretionary with the government. Neither my own search nor the Kappler index of all treaties disclosed any reference to a treaty obligation to provide free (or any) health care.

We can’t blame the myth wholly on activists and inattentive journalists, however — the U.S. Government bears some responsibility as well. The journalist who authored the story quoted above referred me to a PR webpage from the U.S. Indian Health Service. It states: “The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders.”

Now, this statement certainly does not say that any treaties created an obligation to provide free health care. But it has problems of its own. It repeats the false 1787 date. And by stating that the Indian-federal “relationship” has been “given form and substance” by . . . treaties,” it implies that treaties created an obligation to provide health care, although they have not.

The website refers to Article I, Section 8, a part of the Constitution that creates congressional powers (not treaty obligations). Clause 3 of that section provides in part that “The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.” It is true that Congress claims this “Indian Commerce Clause” gives it plenary authority to regulate Indian affairs. But as I have shown elsewhere, the only authority this provision actually granted to Congress was a power to regulate trade between tribes and non-Indians. It certainly did not confer authority to turn tribes into wards, to meddle in internal tribal affairs, or to put tribal members on the federal dole.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm and is filed under Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. “

Definition of Indian Child Welfare Act

 Comments Off on Definition of Indian Child Welfare Act
Jul 042009
 

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

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is

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

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

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

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

.

Another Baby Dies.

 Comments Off on Another Baby Dies.
Jun 282009
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you have an opposite view of the guy –

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

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

Face the truth and do something about it.

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

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

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

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

States Not Complying with ICWA – for Good Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two more families ask for help

 Comments Off on Two more families ask for help
Jun 082009
 

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

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

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

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

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

ICWA steals adoption option from Young Mother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘

Another Win Against ICWA

 Comments Off on Another Win Against ICWA
May 152009
 

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

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

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

ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies

 Comments Off on ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies
Apr 132009
 

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

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

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

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

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three

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

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

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

However;

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

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

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

d) So IS it then the blood relationship that determines membership? Bridget R., (ftn6) stated, “If tribal determinations are indeed conclusive for purposes of applying ICWA, and if, … a particular tribe recognizes as members all persons who are biologically descended from historic tribal members, then children who are related by blood to such a tribe may be claimed by the tribe, and thus made subject to the provisions of ICWA, solely on the basis of their biological heritage. Only children who are racially Indians face this possibility.” Isn’t that then an unconstitutional race-based classification?

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

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

PLEASE PRESS YOUR LEGISLATORS TO CHANGE ICWA LAW

.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Two

 Comments Off on Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Two
Jan 022009
 

.
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…” (ftn5)
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. (ftn5)
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. (ftn5)

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.

Last Part coming…
.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes!

 Comments Off on Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes!
Jan 012009
 

Protecting children and the families they love…

1. Children of tribal heritage should be guaranteed protection equal to that of any other child in the United States. (ftn4) (ftn5)

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. (ftn5 – 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 (ftn8), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (ftn9), and Brown v. Board of Education (ftn10).

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, (ftn5) 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., (ftn6) 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. (ftn7), 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?

More to come…

.

Are Indians Protected by the Constitution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grandparents, Hurt by ICWA, write:

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

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

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

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

… 3 years later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Older Entries  Newer Entries