[Celesyee]

Hi Everybody!

Next week we will be presented to a PBM who is carrying a baby that will be 1/4 Native Alaskan (Klingit tribe). Our agency will be sending out the letter next week for tribal approval and stated "we rarely get turned down for tribal approval."

My NAI friend, who was born and raised on the rez and her mother is a judge on the rez, stated tribal approval is really only necessary in dependancy cases (foster and state adoption) because they want to keep the child in the rez court system. However, in infant domestic adoptions agencies still request tribal approval out of courtesy to the tribe.

I'm wondering, has anybody heard of any situations of when tribal approval is denied for infant domestic adoptions?

Thanks
Celina

[belleinblue1978]

Yes, my son's parents were unable to adopt a child child because he was from the Lakota Sioux Tribe and the judge wouldn't give permission.

Just a gentle reminder that you're dealing with an expectant mom and not a birthmom.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by Celesyee

Hi Everybody!

Next week we will be presented to a birth mother who is carrying a baby that will be 1/4 Native Alaskan (Klingit tribe). Our agency will be sending out the letter next week for tribal approval and stated "we rarely get turned down for tribal approval."

My NAI friend, who was born and raised on the rez and her mother is a judge on the rez, stated tribal approval is really only necessary in dependancy cases because they want to keep the child in the rez court system. However, in infant domestic adoptions agencies still request tribal approval out of courtesy to the tribe.

I'm wondering, has anybody heard of any situations of when tribal approval is denied?

Thanks
Celina

It sounds like this baby's tribe doesn't really intervene in domestic adoptions. I would take that as a very positive sign. After all, an expectant mom should be able to choose the parents of her child without the interference of the courts (any courts).

It would be different if it was foster/adopt where the child was not voluntarily placed in your home. In that situation, the child might already have ties to his/her tribe and the court may want the child to remain involved in the tribe.

Good luck. I hope this works out for you.

[devildogwife]

I'll comment more later. We got tribal approval (from 2 tribes) for Cameron.

[Celesyee]

belleinblue1978--Thanks! I'm still drinking my morning coffee so I totally goofed on that...I've edited my post to PBM. In the case you mentioned, was that a domestic infant adoption???

[MommyToTwo]

My little one is also Native Alaskan (1/2 Yup'ik Eskimo). The process of adopting her was easy, despite the fact our lawyer felt the need to seek approval from EVERY tribe in the country. It seems like a lot of the Alaska tribes pretty much stay out of things unless the state is involved.

[mommy3]

From everything we've researched with our two adoptions, tribal clearances are not pro forma, as the tribes do truly have jurisdiction over their members' children (lengthy discussion regarding tribal/U.S. history is the background here). The key issues we've found are whether the family members, esp. the expectant mother and father, as well as grandparents are registered with the tribe (i.e., have membership numbers) and regardless, if the immediate family has used tribal services, as in a tribal hospital, etc. In those situations, the clearance may not be granted and yes, I know of several situations where it wasn't granted easily or not at all. In our adoptions, however, we did receive the clearances (our children's birthfamilies did not have tribal membership numbers that anyone could locate). We did need 5 clearances total from 3 tribes for our ds' adoption and 2 from one tribe in our dd's. The clearances can be granted prior to birth, although ours weren't done then for various reasons (just timing, mainly).

I have found that many times an agency has a strong working relationship with some of the tribes and/or with the process, so your agency's take on the situation may clearly be a huge help. susan

[belleinblue1978]

Originally Posted by Celesyee

belleinblue1978--Thanks! I'm still drinking my morning coffee so I totally goofed on that...I've edited my post to PBM. In the case you mentioned, was that a domestic infant adoption???

Yep, the Lakota Sioux are in South Dakota for the most part. They fight every adoption though, pretty typical here.

[HBV]

Our son is Cherokee, and in our part of the country, the tribe has a "policy" of intervening. Didn't happen in our case, but it was pretty scary to live through the fear for 10 weeks that the adoption could be disrupted. (Long story, not relevant here)

As a couple others point out, it really depends on the tribe. Tribes are treated as sovereign nations so they can apply their own laws unless they waive their right to intervene. Some do, others fight every single one. They act sort of as a third parent.

The federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires that, absent consent to the adoption by the tribe, a Native American child must be placed 1. Within the family 2. Within the tribe or 3. Within another tribe.

From your post, it sounds as though the tribe you're dealing with often consents to adoption by non-Indian families, but the key is to be certain that your attorney follows the proper notification procedures.

[devildogwife]

Originally Posted by Celesyee

Hi Everybody!

Next week we will be presented to a PBM who is carrying a baby that will be 1/4 Native Alaskan (Klingit tribe). Our agency will be sending out the letter next week for tribal approval and stated "we rarely get turned down for tribal approval."

My NAI friend, who was born and raised on the rez and her mother is a judge on the rez, stated tribal approval is really only necessary in dependancy cases (foster and state adoption) because they want to keep the child in the rez court system. However, in infant domestic adoptions agencies still request tribal approval out of courtesy to the tribe.

I'm wondering, has anybody heard of any situations of when tribal approval is denied for infant domestic adoptions?

Thanks
Celina

I have to say I really disagree with your friend. It is not at all a courtesy. If pbmom is registered, it's the law. The tribes can say no. Our attorney had to notify the department of the interior and the specific tribes. Cameron's tribes (I believe) didn't interfere because his birth mom specifically wanted to place him outside of the tribe. Due to ICWA, she wasn't able to terminate her rights until 11 days after his birth. Then, the tribes has a certain amount of time (10 days I think?) in which they could come forward and not agree to his placement. It really is tribe-specific though. Some routinely say yes, some routinely say no. If your agency has prior experience with that tribe, that's a good thing and I'd listen to what they have to say. Good luck! I'll be anxious to hear how it all turns out.

[HBV]

DevilDogwife is correct, it's not a courtesy, it's a requirement under the federal law.

Your friend may view it that way because she belongs to a tribe that routinely consents, but it's definitely not something to treat lightly.

[crystalp]

We were presented to a pbm who was Rosebud Sioux, and we weren't able to adopt him because the tribe wouldn't concent, even though the mom expressed that she didn't want the baby to go to someone in the tribe.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by crystalp

We were presented to a pbm who was Rosebud Sioux, and we weren't able to adopt him because the tribe wouldn't concent, even though the mom expressed that she didn't want the baby to go to someone in the tribe.

That's where I disagree with the ICWA. No one should force a birthmother's hand when it comes to deciding where to place her infant. In your case, the poor mom had a choice of picking a fellow tribe member (which she didn't want) or raise the baby herself (which she didn't want). The tribe totally disregarded her right to make an appropriate adoption plan that SHE wanted to make. It would be different if she ASKED for intervention from her tribe in locating a native family. But for the tribe to intervene in a voluntary placement? That is so unfair and tramples on Mom's rights to choose who adopts her infant. This unwanted intervention by the tribe probably has a huge effect on native women choosing adoption. It's like our government telling a black woman she can only choose a black couple in her town-even if she already found the perfect adoptive couple in another state.

If I was native american, I'd be tempted to hide it from the placement agency so the ICWA wouldn't be able to tell me who should raise my child. What a shame that would be-because the adopting family would never know the baby's true heritage. It probably happens a lot.

[Celesyee]

Thank you everybody for your responses! Per the agency, we have a really good chance at getting picked as PBM and my husband share the same ethnic background and we live in Hawai'i. However, obviously the concern is getting tribal approval. My friend just emailed me stating she checked with her mom (the judge on the rez) and was told that tribal consent IS necessary.

[christyrana]

We are in AK looking to adopt, and from what I have been told by our agency is that if the state is not involved, then the mother has the right to choose if the tribe is notified of the adoption plan. If she chooses not to let them know, then the tribe can't contest. If she does notify them, then the tribe must agree to the adoption. Also a native mother has to TPR in court in front of a judge. A non-native can sign in front of any notary. Also there is an additional waiting period that applies to native mother's, I think it is 10 days before she can sign.
There were some law passed here to protect the mothers right to choose parents for here child.
As I understand it, if the state is involved, then the tribes look for a relative or other tribe member to parent the child.

Hope this helps. I'm not sure what the impact of the adoptive parents living out of state has.