politics – Page 2 – Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare

Washington DC, September 2007

Comments Off

Mar 302011

During the first week of September, 2007, a handful of CAICW board members and families traveled to Washington DC to speak with officials about the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and its affect upon their children. At each meeting, we told of our personal experiences and gave the Officials ten additional letters written by CAICW families specifically for this purpose as well as a list of policy changes that could help to protect children.

On Tuesday morning, Sept. 4, we met with Aide to Senator John McCain, Mr. Nick Martiella. Mr. Martiella seemed concerned about the family situations we presented to him and was interested in the policy changes. He said he’d like to look into it some more.

At noon, we went to the National Press Club, where we were introduced to two women representing the National Congress of American Indians. Cinda Hughes is a legislative associate and Kraynal Alfred is a Communications and Events Specialist. We spent about a half hour together listening to each other’s perspective.

Later that day, we were invited to the Old executive building to meet with a member of the Domestic Policy Council. The DPC is an advisory group to the President. We met at the Old Executive Building, which is part of the White House Complex and had to go through a little more security then we had at other meetings. The Assistant we met with said he would like to work with us and learn more.

The following day, Wednesday, Sept. 5, we met with Mr. Mark Jette, an aide to Senate Committee of Indian Affairs freshman John Tester (D-MT). Walking into the room, Mr. Jette mentioned growing up in Ronan, the town we are from, and made a little small talk in that direction. Mr. Jette had a negative impression of our work with federal Indian policy, so I began by discussing my husband Roland’s heart and the reasons he had gotten involved with Federal Indian Policy issues. Roland had watched many in his family die tragically and violently. After he became a Christian, he came to believe that current federal policy was hurting people more than helping them. He desired to change things for his extended family by becoming involved politically. Mr. Jette remained somewhat cool toward us, but did agree that some of the policy points had merit; specifically our request that it be made clear in ICWA that parents can designate a legal guardian in their Wills.

Later, we met with Tracy Toulou, Director of Tribal Justice at the DOJ. While sympathetic and seeming to wish tribal justice was better, he said that injustice is common in both tribal and state courts. He understood the difficulties with tribal courts, but reiterated that what the CAICW families need are good lawyers.

At 3 pm, we met with Cindy Darcy, who is the aide in charge of ICWA for the Senate Comm. on Indian Affairs Chairman, Byron Dorgan (D-ND). We explained the policy issues we were concerned with and lightly summarized our family stories as illustrations of the policy deficiencies. I also mentioned other examples, such as the Rodriguez boys, who without warning were taken from their Latino grandparents and given to their Ute grandmother only to suffer severe abuse because they were speaking Spanish. Ms. Darcy took lots of notes and agreed to put the folders we had prepared into the separate mailboxes for each Senator on the committee. Each folder consisted of the letter to Senator Dorgan outlining the policy issues along with footnotes supporting them, copies of the ten stories sent to us by ten separate families, a CAICW brochure, and a CAICW newsletter from the summer of 2006 outlining a few other family stories as well as some of the work CAICW has been doing.

By far the best meeting was with the last one for that day, with Brian Treat, aide to Senator Colburn (R-OK). Right off the bat, he asked if he could bring in his Chief of Staff, Michael Schwartz, because “he is interested, too.” This meeting lasted for over an hour. Mr. Schwartz thought the policy points were common sense and obtainable. They look forward to working with us on this issue. He also advised us to make alliances with adoption agencies and churches.

Our last meeting was Thursday morning at the DOI – Bureau of Indian Affairs, with Stephanie Birdwell. The BIA is unable to change policy; they only regulate it. However, in that function, there are things they can do. Tribes are awarded AFA’s – Annual funding agreements – to run their judicial systems. If there is documented evidence that the compact for the AFA isn’t being administered properly, the AFA can be dropped. If this is an action that needs to be taken, Local people need to be the legs to gather the necessary information.

Press Release that went out August 28, 2007:

CHILDREN, DISCRIMINATION AND THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT

Children’s Lives Destroyed by ICWA

Across America, children that have never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs are routinely being removed from homes they love and placed with strangers chosen by tribes.

Though proponents of the ICWA argue that the act has safeguards to prevent misuse, scores of multi-racial children are being negatively affected by application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Over decades, numerous tribal members have married non-members and moved off the reservations. Many chose to leave because they didn’t want their children raised amid the dangers rampant in Indian Country.

However, ICWA authorizes tribal jurisdiction over any child who is a member of a tribe, or eligible for membership and the biological child of a member. Tribal governments determine their own membership and most require only 1/4 blood quantum, The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma goes further and claims jurisdiction over any child with ancestry tracing back to the Dawes Rolls no matter how minute the blood quantum. Making matters worse, some states have recently passed laws barring courts from considering whether a child or his family have any real connection to the tribe. As a result, the following occurs:

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

Any emotionally healthy child, no matter their heritage, is devastated when taken from home and forced to live with strangers. Even children of 100% tribal heritage are devastated if they’re taken from non-tribal families they love and placed with strangers they know nothing about.

The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW) is the only national organization advocating for families who have lost or are at risk of losing children due to misapplied and sometimes illegal application of the ICWA. The CAICW will be at the National Press Club at 12 noon, Tuesday, September 4, 2007, with affected families sharing about this growing problem.

Letters from birth parents, grandparents, foster families, pre-adoptive families, and tribal members themselves can be read at (https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html )

###

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

Comments Off

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?
.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three

Comments Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!
.

Campbell Brown, you were RIGHT about Leech Lake. Stay Strong!

Comments Off

Dec 202008

.
Campbell Brown, please don’t bow to the negative comments you have been recieving. I am the mother of several enrolled children of the Leech Lake Tribe, and what you said was correct!

However, whenever anyone speaks out against the obvious happening on the reservations, they are tore limb from limb. They are bullied to make them shut up, and that is exactly what is happening to you. I know this because it has has happened me and even to my husband, who was a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe – Leech Lake, born and raised on Leech Lake Reservation. He spoke out because he was tired of watching his friends and relatives die. He knew that it was the reservation system itself that was destructive to them. He took our entire family and moved 1200 miles away and became politically active in an effort to bring change, happiness and hope to the people he loved.

However, getting any word out that is contrary to the image that the tribal government (industry?) chooses to project is very difficult. Although my husband went to Washington DC several times to speak to Congressmen, it was very hard as a small person to combat the lobbying the tribes do. Remember Abramoff?

Senator Burns’ staff, (he was our Senator at the time), told me that the only way he would ever agree to any legislation changing Indian law is if all 500 tribes agreed to it. Never mind what’s constitutional and never mind the civil rights of millions of US citizens. Just please the tribal governments. They pay very well.

And yes, there are many constitutional attorneys and professors that say that much of Indian law is unconstitutional. Please contact me and I can refer you to some.

Look at the last US census and ask yourself why so many enrolled members have moved off the reservation. #1) life is dangerous there. #2) many enrollable people are primarily NON-indian; meaning, their blood quantums are less than 1/2 tribal heritage. They have other lives, other family, and other world views, not always the same as the tribal governents.

However, if they should die, no matter their personal choice, the tribal government has jurisdiction over their children.

Please stay strong in the truth that you spoke! Don’t let them bully you!
.

To Clint and Heather Larson

Comments Off

Dec 192008

.
Clint and Heather –
I don’t want to devastate you further. I wish I could assure you that your baby will be okay, but I can’t. The Leech Lake Reservation is so bad, that even my husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe from Leech Lake, took our kids far from it and wrote in his will that he did NOT want the grand kids that he had legal custody of (through ICWA, of course) to go back there when he died.

He passed away four years ago and how I managed to keep his grand kids is still a mystery to us. The Lord definitely had his hand in it. We imagine that the Mpls. Star and Tribe series, “The Lost Youth Of Leech Lake,” which came out just two months before he passed away also brought such bad publicity to the tribe that they simply decided not to fight with us.

I strongly urge you to continue to fight for this little boy. It will be hard enough for him having to deal with the affects of having been born with substances in his system. But being in Cass Lake on top of it….

You said on the news that you want to fight to make sure this doesn’t happen to any more children. We are also trying to fight for the children. I have a grandson now who, at 1/4 blood quantum, is enrollable. If anything should happen to his parents, I WILL fight the tribe tooth and nail and I WILL defy the law if it came down to it.

We would like to work with you in your battle.

Leech Lake Tribal Government Steals Child from Utah Family

Comments Off

Dec 182008

,
On Sunday, December 16, 2008, in South Jordon, Utah, Clint and Heather were forced to give the baby they had adopted and cared for to one of the worst reservations in the United States.

In the Spring of 2004, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune had done a series called the “Lost Youth Of Leech Lake.” In it, the reporter described the horrible environment children are being raised in on that reservation, as well as the treatment of children by tribal social services.

I myself have witnessed first hand plenty the neglectful and downright dangerous treatment and care of children on that reservation, and twenty years ago, my husband, a member born and raised there, made a decision that our children weren’t going to be raised anywhere near it.

It is NOT safe, and the United States Government is CRIMINAL to be forcing children to be raised there when they have the option to live in a safe and loving home.

As a matter of fact, one of the worst cases of the U.S. forcing children out of a good home and into a dysfunctional home in Leech Lake was reported in the series, the “Lost Youth of Leech Lake.” It involved three little girls. That decision by the tribe – as well as every one of our US Congress that voted for this awful ICWA law – resulted in these little girls being placed in an awful home. The final result was a murder and attempted murder. And that isn’t the only tragic story involving ICWA in Leech Lake.

I urge every parent with a conscience to speak up against this law. After all, you never know when it might affect you. We have adoptive families that have written to our organization, in pain and fear because the child they have adopted is being pursued by a tribe, and the child has only a small fraction of blood quantum. in one case, the child is 98% NON-Indian. We also have had birth fathers write to us when they lost custody because they weren’t Indian. We’ve also had grandparents write because they were denied custody because they weren’t Indian.

Please, check out https://www.caicw.org/familystories.html to read many letters from families affected by ICWA.
.

Possible Incentives for ICWA –

Comments Off

Dec 182008

.
Congressional Indulgence of Tribal Government?

In 2002, Senator Max Baucus wrote in reference to a bill concerning federal recognition of tribes, “I am forced to disagree…this amendment…requires the implementation of…adversarial hearings at the request of any interested party.”

In other words, Senator Baucus, a top recipient of Indian Gaming funds at the time, wasn’t interested in hearing any point of view other than that of the tribal government.

Two of former Senator Conrad Burns’ aides (R-MT) also stated in meetings a year apart that Senator Burn’s will not change any Indian law unless all 500+ tribes agree to it.

Since that time, it has been discovered that Senator Burns was deeply involved with lobbyist Jack Abramoff and funds coming from tribal entities.

Several other Senators have been linked to Abramoff and/or tribal funds.

Unfortunately, many families affected by ICWA can’t afford to buy themselves a Senator.
.

Another Problem with ICWA –

Comments Off

Dec 092008

.
Prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian community?

Exclusive jurisdiction by the tribe is scary enough for many foster and adoptive parents, but imagine how it feels for birth parents, both tribal and non, that have chosen to raise their children outside of the tribe.

If these parents should unexpectedly die, ICWA requires that “the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian community in which … extended family resides…” be applied in placement preferences.” 25 USC 1915(d). There is no other race in the United States who are denied parental right of choice in this way.

The question arises, “What is referred to by social and cultural standards?”

If it is referring to traditional Indian Spirituality, the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

If it is traditional culture that is being referred to, such as language and food gathering methods, many elders, but fewer young people, practice these on the reservations today. Many teenagers are simply not interested enough to work at the language, and few honor ancient ways of hunting, fishing or harvest that was traditionally considerate and took only what was needed for the family. Does social and cultural standards refer to a romantic image or reality?

This is not to say that there are no tribal members that practice tradition. There are. But tradition is not the current standard on most reservations. There is still interest in art and craftwork, both traditional and modern approaches, but this interest in Indian art crosses racial lines and is enjoyed all over the world. Is it for art that we are placing children under tribal jurisdiction?

If the above isn’t “prevailing social and cultural standards, then what is?

Sadly, the current cultural and social standards of many reservations (not all) include gambling, gang activity, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, unwed pregnancies, violence in and out of the homes, and child neglect. On top of all that, there is epidemic corruption within many tribal administrations.

This is not to say that reservations alone have problems of alcoholism and corruption. All of these problems can be found in any neighborhood, anywhere. But it does appear that on some reservations, these problems are a prevailing cultural and social standard.

So just what is Congress mandating when it states that social and cultural standards of the reservation be applied?

The problem is that Congress – based on faulty assumptions concerning tribal standards – is mandating that OUR children – who aren’t owned by the tribes – be raised under less than safe conditions if we are no longer able to raise them.

In mandating that the tribes have jurisdiction over OUR children, Congress is mandating that OUR children receive less concern over their best interests, and less child protection than children of other heritages would recieve under the same circumstances.

The ICWA has frequently been supported by One-Sided Testimony

Comments Off

Nov 302008

.
The Montana Supreme Court noted in Skillen v. Skillen, No. 96-520, MT 43, (1998) that “after extensive hearings” Congress found the ICWA was necessary.

But what is meant by an “extensive” hearing? Most Americans would assume it means “far-reaching,” “thorough,” all-embracing,” and “evenhanded.”

However, the 1978 testimony was NOT fully representative of the people the Act affects.

Were representatives of enrolled parents or non-enrolled parents invited to speak?
Did anyone speak for non-enrolled parents?
Were tribal members that enjoy living within the dominant American culture invited to say so?
Were people that were happy with the non-tribal foster homes they were raised in represented?
Were parents notified that tribal lawyers, adoption agencies, and politicians were discussing a law affecting their rights and the best interests of their children?
If these people were not represented, was the 1978 testimony fully thorough?

In 1996, an aide to Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) stated that parents and caregivers weren’t invited to Senate ICWA Hearings because the Senators had already chosen who they want to hear, and they already had a full panel.
That panel consisted of tribal leaders, adoption agencies, social workers, and lawyers representing the tribal governments. There was no one there to speak for opposing families.
The aide, mentioning Rosy Parks and the number of people that participated in civil rights marches, went on to say that unless we could come up with a large number of people wanting ICWA changed, they had no interest in hearing what we had to say.

Our Rights Don’t Matter.

Please read our “Family Stories“ section to learn more.
.

ICWA Has hurt Children and Parents.

Comments Off

Nov 212008

Federal, State, and Tribal authorities have favored a child’s tribal heritage over that child’s Irish, Afro-American, Scottish, Latino, or Jewish heritage, or any other heritage the child has, no matter the percentages. Whether the child’s heritage is predominately Slavic or Mexican, the only question asked is whether the child is enrollable.
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.
Some Tribal governments have claimed jurisdiction over children that have little tribal heritage and are not enrollable according to their constitutions.
Contrary to state laws pertaining to the best interest of the child, some Tribal governments have ignored the interaction and relationships children have had with caregivers; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community; the length of time the child has lived in a stable home, and the permanence of the existing or proposed custodial home.
Many county courts and social services have backed away when ICWA is involved because they do not understand ICWA or 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.
…Read their letters

Spoke at the Mille Lacs Symposium re: ICWA

Comments Off

Sep 232008

.
I was asked to speak about ICWA at the Mille Lacs Equal Rights Symposium this last weekend. This was, I suppose, a chance for rebuttal to the slander that occurred last year in Mille Lacs under the banner of the Minnesota Human Rights network. However, I never mentioned last years meeting. Others did that plenty.

Dr. William Allen, the former chairman of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights, was the keynote speaker. Dr. Allen was awesome.

We had the privilege of breakfast with Dr. Allen just before the symposium. We stayed with a Mille Lacs county commissioner who has been a friend of ours for years, (prior to him becoming a commissioner.) He invited Dr. Allen to come over for breakfast prior to the meeting. Bill Lawrence, the publisher of the Native American Press/Ojibwe News and a member of the Red Lake tribe, was also there. I’d written for his paper a few times in the 1990’s.

It was incredibly comfortable. Dr. Allen, who is a professor in political science at Michigan State, had some really interesting things to say about the current presidential campaign. I wish I’d taken notes.

Now the Seminar –

I was very nervous. I’ve written a lot and said a few words at a few different places, but I’ve never spoken for 45 minutes before. However, although I’m not the best speaker, the reaction after the meeting was overwhelming. A legislator from Minnesota was there and wanted more information. Others came up to speak to me – all very encouraging. One woman was almost crying! I gave out several of Roland’s videos. A pastor we knew from western Montana was also there – he’d moved several years ago. He wanted us to spend the night with him last night (but we needed to get home)

One man wanted to give me a deer-hide drum he’d made in exchange for two videos. So we traded.

But the reaction to my presentation is nothing compared to the the speech Dr. Allen gave concerning federal Indian policy, ICWA, and the underlying goals and thought processes behind them. His comments were incredibly insightful. ALSO he is interested in writing more on these issues after he’s finished with his current project in January.

Dr. Allen left from the meeting to catch his flight back to Maryland. The girls and I went back to to the Commissioners home, where we spent a couple of hours with him, Bill and their wives sitting on the porch overlooking the lake. Again, I am so grateful for how comfortable the conversation was.

Maybe it’s because we’ve all been attacked together over the years because of our tribal politics. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because they knew and loved Roland. It’s been four years now since he passed, and not everyone we meet knows him anymore.

Somebody wrote this the next day…

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:04 PM

Lisa,
,,, I live in Ramsey, MN.
On Saturday, I was at the meeting in Wahkon, MN and heard you speak. You did a marvelous job. I wanted to talk to you but had to leave right before lunch and couldn’t.
I will donate some $ online at your website, but not that I can afford much. But, the work you folks do is wonderful. I don’t think anyone there knew of the issues you brought up. It is disgusting and heart breaking. Hopefully, you folks can make a difference and help the kids out.

Tribal Government shouldn’t have jurisdiction over our kids

1 Response »

May 032008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until something comes up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newer Entries