[Snugglebug]

I posted this in another forum but I think I will find others who can offer more insight on this here.

We recently found out that our little girls (fd) bd is claiming to be of Native American heritage via his Grandfather. This child has been placed with us (my husband is bmom's cousin) for one year and this is the first we have heard of this claim. Both parents were TPR'd in Oct. 2005 and bdad filed an appeal based on his Native American Heritage. The baby was abandoned by bmom at 19 days old, and bd will be incarcerated for several more years and has NEVER met this child. We are now being told that it will take an additional 6-8 months to investigate his claim and we will be in limbo until then.

Thankfully we were able to do our adoption SIGNING today [img]/images/smilies/cheer.gif[/img], although we did have to sign an amendmant, stating that we were aware of the appeal and the possibility that the judgement could be overturned if the tribe chooses to intervene.

I have one million questions, but does anyone have experience with ICWA, or children having great grandparents with Native American heritage? I can't imagine that anyone, regardless of his/her heritage would want to remove a child from her biological family, especially when she is able to have contact with her half siblings through us, but everything is just so insane right now. Any feedback would be appreciated!

Jessica

[skootinalong2]

First, I would get a copy of the Judge's ICWA Bench Guide. If I remember correctly, I paid $35.00 for my copy. I found it online.

The tribe is supposed to respond within 30 days to say if the child meets tribal enrollment eligibility requirements.

If so, then they basically have as much time as they want to do what they want. (They did not officially intervene until we petitioned for adoption. He was almost a year old. Who knows how long he would have been in the system before they officially did something) Sad for the children.

I would hire a lawyer. Your lawyer will have access to to other cases that have been won. They used a case won in L.A. as "evidence" of precidence set. (I know that is not how to word it but I am not a lawyer) I know that our case will come up as well as another that was in Santa Clara County. I am sure there are others.

Is this birth father registered in his tribe? Does he live on or near the reservation? Does he practice tribal customs? These are things that the DA (our son's lawyer) brought up during the trial.

Please understand that I am not completely bashing ICWA. I understand the need for it to some extent. What I am bashing is the time that is taken to do anything. There are many Native American families who are waiting to adopt.

I am surprised by your case because you are a relative.
Good luck.

[FClareCat]

I am a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and we always must investigate if the child/ren are native. That isn't always easy, due to blood quantum rules. Blood quantum doesn't necessarily rule out children living with Native families, if it is in the best interest of the child. There are children living with native GP, but the GK aren't enrollable. Children were older. I went to a presentation by a tribal judge, and each tribe requires different quantum and situations. The tribes he works for will be a party to proceedings regarding any child identified as native in some manner. The background for this was the savage loss suffered by the Native North Americans, through European contact. The don't identify minerals, fish, fur ect. as their wealth, but children. It is through the children that their culture will grow and stay strong.
I am just passing on information that I just learned. I think your child is already in your home, with the papers signed, and the native relationship being that distant, and the child is with biological family that it is likely that you can relax.

[Johmo]

Anyone who says ICWA is good for all "Native" children is naive, politically correct, blind, or living in lala land. It's high time people stand up and speak out on behalf of the children whose lives are turned upside down (yet again) by this desperately archaic Act. Ripping a child out of a stable and loving environment because his great-great-grandfather lived on a reservation 60 years before he was born is absurd. Yes, our adopted sons' great-great-grandfather did live on a reservation 70 years ago. What ICWA disregards is the fact that our sons' other seven great-great-grandfathers and their eight great-great-grandmothers NEVER lived on a reservation. Moreover, and more importantly, our sons NEVER lived within a thousand miles of that reservation. In other words, our sons are not Indian children, as ICWA defines them. They are part Indian, just as they are part Anglo, Hispanic, German, etc.... Their tribe has ignored them for all but 11 months of their lives, during which time they fought to remove them from our home. Read about ICWA and you'll read all this feel-good stuff about how tribes want to maintain contact with "their" children, and how the children must maintain contact with their culture. Living with us does not prevent the tribe from maintaining contact with our sons; nor does it prevent our sons from learning about that one (6%!) aspect of their heritage and culture. We have traced their genealogy back (with no help from the tribe) to tribal chiefs in the late 1700's. We have also traced their non-Indian genealogy, which is JUST AS IMPORTANT! The tribe has turned its back on them, not the other way around, as ICWA proponents claim. Our boys (aren't they the ones who matter in this case after all?) are doing extremely well. If anyone from the tribe would take the time to contact them, then perhaps the tribe would know this. If the tribe chooses to continue to ignore our sons, then it will be to the tribe's detriment. Our sons have a very low view of the people who fought to take them away from their mom and dad. Frankly, I can't blame them. I know my post will anger some people. I know what happened years ago and I know why ICWA was passed. What we all need to keep in mind, however, and be honest enough to admit without fear of being labeled a bigot, is that children born off the reservation today can not be used as a band-aid to treat the wounds of past Native adoptees who were ripped from the reservation a generation or two ago.

[NDN]

Originally Posted by Johmo

Anyone who says ICWA is good for all "Native" children is naive, politically correct, blind, or living in lala land. It's high time people stand up and speak out on behalf of the children whose lives are turned upside down (yet again) by this desperately archaic Act...I know what happened years ago and I know why ICWA was passed. What we all need to keep in mind, however, and be honest enough to admit without fear of being labeled a bigot, is that children born off the reservation today can not be used as a band-aid to treat the wounds of past Native adoptees who were ripped from the reservation a generation or two ago.

I hardly have the words to respond to the last post. First, I have NEVER heard anyone say that ICWA is good for all Native children. NOTHING is good for ALL of any group. The point of ICWA is to let the Nation decide what is best in the given situation.

We don't all like what qualifies children to fall under this act, or how the government has chosen to define it...it is just an extension of the arbitraty standard of indianess that has been imposed by the federal government--otherwise known as blood quantum. Also, in case you're unaware...whether or not the child of Nation lives on a reservation is irrelevant at best. Many of the reservations were disbanded and the people forced to take private allotments as a way for the government to seize yet more land while also attempting to destroy the practice of collective land among the people.

I think what troubles me about your post the most, however, is that you describe this as an attempt to put a band-aid on the past. Obviously you are under the mistaken impression that cultural genocide and continued land conflicts are a thing of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, this is common belief, however. I am deeply saddened by this...but even more disappointed that people do not choose to go out and learn the truth for themselves.

[Snugglebug]

Thank you all for your replies, we are still waiting for a response (if any) from the named tribe. Sadly the bf tried to stop the appeal after receiving a letter and pictures that I sent him (I mailed them before I knew about the appeal). But due to the restrictions of the ICWA and the appeals process, he was unable to.

I believe that this law is being heavily abused by birth parents, especially when they have never formed a connection with their own tribes. Our baby girl has a 1/8 indian blood quantum which makes her inelligible for membership in the named tribe, however I don't know if that will prevent them from intervening in her case. If ICWA was set up to protect the childs best interest and assured that all aspects of the childs life and history would be considered when determining the childs fate - I would be able to support it's purpose.
However I have read case after case where tribes have intervened and tried to have children placed with NA families simply becase they had the right to do so. In many of these cases, the well being of the tribe was the only factor which was considered. They chose to disregard the childs wishes, mental health, non-NA family connections and so much more.

The language of the ICWA is much to broad, and the law itself is flawed and broken. Hopefully someday, someone will be able to encourage the reform of this law and make it fair for the all the children it affects. Until then I am just going to hope and pray that the person who reviews our case will make a decision with his/her heart and be able to recognize that there is no benefit in ripping a little girl away from the only mom and dad she has ever known. If they do choose to intervene we will be hiring a lawyer and I will be contacting those of you who have so graciously offered me your experiences and insight.

Jessica

[NDN]

I hope you get a response soon. It has to be sooooo tough to be stuck in limbo. I don't know what Nation the ancestry is alledged to come from, but many do support the idea of relative placements...even when the relatives are not NA. So, hopefully, that will hold true for you and they will not challenge it. It is up to the individual tribe to consider all factors...that is where the problems occur...cause each Nation has it's own concept of what is best, which factors matter most, etc. That is why some tribe intervene all the time...and some rarealy do.

[Johmo]

I too, am saddened, but not for the same reason that you are. I am saddened that my sons' tribe tried to rip them from the only stable environment they had ever known and have them moved to a birth relative (of one of the boys) who reported that her plan was to separate them down the road. I am saddened that the tribe claimed to care about their well-being, yet would put them in a situation in which they would have grown up five hours apart from one another. I am saddened that the tribe has ignored them completely since the adoption. I am saddened by the Karuk Tribe's attempts to prevent the adoption of a young girl who has NO INDIAN BLOOD whatsoever. I am saddened by the fact that ICWA allows the tribes to treat these children as property. I am saddened by the fact that social workers are applying ICWA to descendants of non-federally recognized tribes and Candian tribes. I am saddened by the fact that ICWA is often used simply as a tool to delay children's adoptions, whether there is any Indian blood or not. I am saddened that ICWA applied to my kids when they are 15 times more non-Indian than Indian. I am saddened that Sierra Goodman ended up the way she did because ICWA prevented her from being adopted by the people by whom she wanted to be adopted. I am saddened by the fact that young brothers Jose and Emilio Rodriguez will never be the same because corrupt social workers used ICWA to move them to live with their maternal grandmother, who had two previous convictions for child endangerment, and is now serving a nearly twenty year sentence for beating Jose into a coma. I am sad, too, that my kids were treated as political pawns. I am sad about a lot of things. Perhaps most of all, I am saddened by any law that prevents or delays permanence for our nation's most vulnerable children.

[NDN]

Johmo,

Obviously you are passionate about this subject and I respect that. However, I think it is a case of how we each view things differently based on our own life experience.

I am not fully supportive of ICWA. However, I think it is one of the small safeguards that we do have to prevent losing our children for the high crime of being Native. I know this my sound like a paranoid exaggeration to those that have not experienced institutionalized racism...but it does exist and is still very much in practice in many areas of the US.

There are many cases where ICWA has been applied incorrectly...and some cases of outright corruption. That is all very true. I don't believe that this is in the best interest of the children...sadly, that is how the system works in this country.

The way that ICWA is applied definitely needs work. The problem is, by calling it arcaic and trying to throw it out completely, we effectively remove the only safegaurd that Native governments' have in ensuring that they have at least some choice in what happens within their own population. I don't always agree with the decisions made by tribal governments. Lord knows I have severe issues with my Nation's government. However, I do believe that we should still have the right to make those decisions. There is already a GREAT deal of federal government control over EVERY decision made by tribal government...to remove yet another hurdle to that is frightening at best.

[Johmo]

I agree that tribes need to have some sort of self-determination. I think the main place you and I can agree to disagree is to the extent ICWA is applied. I believe it should not apply to children such as mine, and you apparently do. I can also respect you for your opinion and honesty and passion. I have nothing against Native Americans -- after all, I adopted two children who are part Native and I love them as my own. We have taken them to powwows and read much material on their heritage. As I pointed out, it is sad that the tribe itself has never done a thing to introduce their tribal culture to them. Nothing. I have a problem with the way some of the tribal governments, social workers, judges, attorneys and birth relatives operate with ICWA in their hands. By the way, in response to your first post, I do know ICWA very well. I have studied it for five years now, after being forced to learn about it in an effort to retain custody of my sons. The problem is not so much the Act itself as it is in the way the Act is too often misapplied. I wish you well.

[NDN]

[quote=Johmo]I believe it should not apply to children such as mine, and you apparently do.[\QUOTE]

Actually, IMO, I don't necessarily think that ICWA should be applied to children that are not culturally Native. However, I feel like it's a moot point because the federal government defines indianess according to ancestry and blood quantum. I think it is sad, but we have to operate under that. Personally, I feel that our Nations' should have the right to define membership within a cultural context...but we are not allowed to do that.

[Johmo]

Part of the problem with ICWA lies in those who speak out on its behalf. Terry Cross, NICWA director, recently told WORLD Magazine that Native American children are always better off with a tribal family. Such a blanket statement does a grave disservice to the children. Your personal view that you think it should apply to children who are "culturally" Indian makes so much more sense and is far more consistent with Congress' apparent intent in passing the Act in the first place. It is so clear in the wording that the Act was intended to apply to children who have previous ties to tribal culture and not to children such as mine. One thing that tribal governments can do is to waive their ICWA rights when faced with cases such as ours, and assert their ICWA rights when dealing with cases in which the children have been involved in Indian culture. I still have a problem, though, when the rest of a child's heritage is thrown out the window in favor of his Indian heritage. As I said in my first post, my children are made up of many different cultures. To say that one is more important than all the others combined, and to base custody decisions on such a view, is discriminatory. Another thing that bothers me is the amount of racism I see among some Native people. I read message forums on Indian message boards and frankly, they frighten me at times, and they make me hesitant to attend future powwows with my children. I simply do not wish to expose them to the racism. My oldest son is 15/16 white. I don't want him hearing that his 15 white great great grand-parents are hated by some of the more vocal members of the Indian community. I know of a little girl who is living with white foster parents. Officials from her tribe told her that white people steal. Such language is hate-filled, bigoted, and completely inappropriate. Her foster parents are simply trying to provide her with a loving, stable environment, something that she has never experienced. Does she need such confusion? Or can the tribe put aside its hatred and help her to move on with her life, without adding to the emotional abuse she has suffered throughout her young life? Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. I see these things all the time in my reading and in studying about ICWA.