[NancyAshe]

A recent episode of the Dr. Phil Show focused on the story of a family who adopted a Native American child, and over three years later, the birthmother is reclaiming her child, apparently because of an error made by the adoptive parents' attorney. As explained on the show, under the terms of ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act, relinquishment must be signed in front of a judge (even if that is not a usual requirement in the state), otherwise the relinquishing parent(s) can reclaim their child at any time - and in this case, relinquishment was not signed in front of a judge.

Read more from the Dr. Phil Show about Deperate to protect Christian

and more information on ICWA and the history behind its enactment.

[MajaHedman]

Well since that all happened in South Dakota, apparently the attorney didn't know anything about adoption because all first mothers have to relinquesh in front of a judge. So regardless of the IWCA law, which he also obviously didn't know, he had it messed up from the beginning.

[edenstore]

ICWA had a purpose for its enactment--to prevent what was becoming an underground railroad for taking Indian children from their cultures. That is why ICWA must be strictly and narrowly construed. The mother's apparent argument is that the adoption is void. Having lived in South Dakota for 15 years, I can appreciate the reluctance to return a child to the "reservation." But it defeats ICWA itself to argue that time and separation justify the legal error when less-than-honorable separation is what ICWA was meant to prevent. However, it would be very interesting if an attorney experienced with ICWA could shed some light on what legal arguments the aparents have.

Erik L. Smith