More questions than answers #Alexandria #ICWA

ICWA Placement Preference Decision Out of California Involving Choctaw Tribe (Turtle Talk)

Here.
This is a re-occurring and incredibly frustrating ICWA fact pattern–if the ICWA compliant placement is out of state, or far away from the parents, and the goal is reunification, it makes sense for the tribe and state to allow for a non-compliant ICWA placement near the parents. What happens, however, when reunification fails? As in this case, a court is often unwilling to remove the child from the home she has been in for anywhere from one to three years. Honest, actual, concurrent permanency planning could help with this, but while that is a best practice, it does not seem to be happening with any regularity at the state.

Concluding that the ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences do apply to this case, we then review the trial court’s order finding that the P.s failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of good cause to depart from those placement preferences. We determine that the court applied the correct burden of proof by requiring the P.s to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was good cause to deviate from section 1915’s placement preferences. However, the court erroneously required the P.s to prove a certainty that Alexandria would suffer harm if moved, and failed to consider Alexandria’s best interests or her bond with the P.s in determining good cause.
***
We recognize that a final decision regarding Alexandria’s adoptive placement will be further delayed as a result of our determination of the merits of this appeal. That delay is warranted by the need to insure that the correct legal standard is utilized in deciding whether good cause has been shown that it is in the best interest of Alexandria to depart from the ICWA’s placement preferences.

As also often happens, the parties start arguing about the very constitutionality of ICWA, making this case a “not as bad as it could have been” case–the court didn’t find ICWA is unconstitutional, nor does Adoptive Couple apply (as the de facto parents argued) to this fact pattern. And yet, the trial court decision placing the child with her extended family is still overturned based on the child’s best interest standard. Getting courts to acknowledge that the best interests of a child ought to include the child’s whole life, not just the one transition in front of the court at that moment, is both vital and seemingly impossible.

For the (depressing) record, here is Evelyn Blanchard writing the same thing in 1977 in The Destruction of American Indian Families, ed. Steven Unger (Association of American Indian Affairs 1977).

TODAY:  NICWA’s statement:

We are disturbed by this weekend’s flurry of negative media attention regarding the attempted reunification of a child with her family in Utah. In this contentious custody case, there have never been any surprises as far as what the law required. The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful.

In fact, the only surprising turn of events is the lengths the foster family has gone to, under the advice of an attorney with a long history of trying to overturn ICWA, to drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child in question. That the foster family now argues bonding and attachment should supersede all else despite testimony of those closest to her case, seems like a long-term, calculated legal strategy based on the simple fact that the law was always clear, they understood it, but just chose not to abide by it.

The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children, not just Native American children.

We call on the media to provide balanced reporting and to ask vital questions regarding these facts before inflaming the public and subjecting the privacy and future well-being of a little girl to national debate.

Previous coverage of the appeal of this case is here.

As always, we remain concerned with the lack of privacy for a child who doesn’t get to make decisions about her identity being put forward into the press. In perhaps no surprise to anyone, this case involves repeat players from the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/indian-child-welfare-act-separates-062934936.html

Adoptee, sibling reunite in #California

 Half-siblings Gina Aragona and Maynard Smith stand together in Stockton. The brother and sister met for the first time during New Year’s weekend thanks to G.J. Chris Graves, a retired gentleman who helps adopted children and birth parents find each other. Photo courtesy Maynard Smith

By Sara Hayden                        

About 160 miles northeast of Pescadero is the rural town of Newcastle. There are about 1,200 residents and people are so spread out that it could feel isolated. So 71-year-old G.J. Chris Graves takes great pains to reach out to the world from there — especially to people he’s never met before.

Recently, the retired bank vice president drafted an unusual email to the Review. He was looking for photographs of one Yvonne J. Smith.“Her partner is deceased, her house has burned down. This email is about the last gasp we are making to find a photo of her,” Graves’ message explained. “This is to give to her daughter, adopted out at birth.”

Who is Ms. Smith?
The Review found no photos in its archives and learned only a little about Smith, based on a memorial announcement that ran in the paper on May 9, 2001.
It said Smith had lived in Pescadero the last 21 years of her life — that she had a “‘sparkling’ presence at the Pescadero Art & Fun Festival.” There, she sold chili with Ron Roeschlaub, her partner of 23 years.
Before Smith died, she told Roeschlaub that she didn’t want a funeral. She wanted a party.
She ended up with a parade.
On May 13, 2001, a Sunday, a parade in her honor wound along Stage Road from the I.D.E.S. Hall to the Pescadero Community Church.
A Scottish bagpiper helped lead the way. A donkey-drawn cart, decorated with black roses, carried Smith’s bones in the back. Medieval-style dancers pranced around them, accompanied by European country-dance music, and a local rock band met the procession at the end at I.D.E.S. Hall when the parade came full circle.

Soul seeker
Graves has been able to fill in some of the blanks about Smith with basic information, despite never having known the woman. He learned when her birthday was, that she had had children, married and divorced. With scant clues, he was even able to find some of her friends in the Pescadero community.
When Graves isn’t tending his outdoor master garden, he is particularly keen at scouring the Internet in response to inquiries to find people like Smith...
Graves is a self-proclaimed “Search Angel,” helping adopted children find their birth parents, and vice-versa.
“Do you want to know what pain is, my friend? … There’s 9,349 people looking for someone in the state of California alone. That’s a lot of pain,” said Graves. He added that on birth parent search websites such as Adoption Registry Connect, three to five new inquiries are listed every day. Search Angels like Graves all over the country work around the clock to answer the inquiries.
The interest started shortly after Graves’ retirement in the mid-1990s. First, his wife’s cousin wanted to find a birth mother, followed by a man in his 30s whom Graves had hired to paint his house. Graves took it upon himself to locate them — and succeeded.
Read the rest here: http://www.hmbreview.com/news/family-seeks-past-and-finds-future-together/article_397588fe-55d1-11e2-8602-0019bb2963f4.html

What about the other 9,348 people looking for someone in California?

There is help for those looking for family
On the hunt for roots, medical information or answers in general, some adoptees go on a wild goose chase to find their loved ones. Although professional investigative services are an option, they’re not the only way. Cheaper alternatives might be available.
State adoption processes may be riddled with bureaucracy, but various pieces of legislation have been put in place to make the search for a birth parent or child easier.
California is an example of a state that offers a mutual consent program. That means that both adoptees who are 18 and older and birth parents may have the right to contact each other if both parties consent. Siblings who participate in the program may also get in touch with each other. To do so, they must submit consent forms to the California Department of Social Services or the agency from which the child was adopted.
Adoptees 21 and older can also request the name and address of a birth parent from one of the above agencies via the Adoptions Information Act. The information is available if the birth parent signed an Adoptions Information Act Statement granting permission to do so.
CDSS or the adoption agency may also provide non-identifying information. That won’t reveal specifics such as the name of the parent or a date of birth, but provides potentially useful details such as health and medical records, education and work information, description of physical appearance and more, based on interviews with birth parents.
For more information, contact the CDSS at (916) 651-8088.
You can also create a profile on an adoption search database such as www.adopteeconnect.com
Search Angels like G.J. Chris Graves are also available to help people find each other for free on a volunteer basis.  Email Graves at caliron@att.net.