A family gathering. Jonathan Hooker, Lori Brem, Lori's daughter Eva Dawn and Darryl Flett. (Submitted by Lori Brem)
Through
laughter, Lori Brem tells the story of the meeting that brought her
brother Jonathan Hooker, a New Zealand resident, and her Uncle Darryl
Flett from northern Manitoba together for the first time.
The
three relatives met in Texas in November 2024. Brem, a resident of
China Spring, Texas, and Hooker, of Mount Maunganui, New Zealand, share
the same birth father and Flett is their uncle.
"To hear them all talking," Brem chuckles.
"Jonathan
speaks so fast and Darryl speaks real slow. And then we have our drawl,
like we say 'Y'all.' Hearing all the different accents was just so
funny to me."
How do the roads between three communities on opposite sides of the world converge in Texas?
Brem
and Hooker are survivors of the Sixties Scoop, where First Nations,
Métis and Inuit children were removed from their homes and placed with
non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991, and
lost their cultural identities as a result.
Brem was taken from Swan River, Man., along with her siblings. Hooker was taken from Moose Lake, Man.
Brem and Hooker's adoptions, like so many others, tore them from their families and their roots.
Hooker
was adopted by a couple from the U.K. who spent time in Canada and
eventually settled on New Zealand's North Island. He said he always know
he was adopted because he didn't look like his fair-skinned parents.
"It was really obvious that there was some job going on there, having black hair and dark skin," he said.
"I was really too young to realize the enormity of what had happened to me."
During
the 2024 reunion, Flett sat down with Brem and Hooker to discuss the
family history and the Sixties Scoop. Hooker said it was "a shock to the
system" to hear how authorities would go to reserves and remove
children.
Lawyer In Illicit Marshallese Adoption Scheme Now Accused Of Paying Texas Inmates For Babies
Jody Hall previously arranged for
pregnant women to fly from the Marshall Islands to the U.S. through
Honolulu in violation of international law. It's unclear if this new
investigation will examine those actions as well as the jail
accusations.
A lawyer who was a subject of a Civil Beat investigation in 2019 into
an illegal adoption pipeline from the Marshall Islands through Honolulu
has been accused of paying pregnant women at a Texas jail to place
their babies for adoption.
Jody Hall was paying “multiple” inmates in Tarrant County, Texas to
give up their unborn children in adoptions through her agency, Adoptions
International, according to the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office.
Hall was arrested on July 23 at her home in Kyle, south of Austin, on the charge of sale or purchase of a child
— a third-degree felony — according to an online booking record. She
was released the same day on a $50,000 bond. The jail where she is
accused of paying for babies is in Fort Worth, about a three-hour drive
to the north of her home.
Texas
lawyer Jody Hall was booked in Hays County Texas last week and released
on $25,000 bond. (Hays County Sheriff’s Office/2024)
Hall’s agency is still in good standing with the state of Texas,
according to an online database, and she retains her license to practice
law. Hall did not return a phone call seeking comment.
The arrest was apparently part of a broader investigation into Hall’s
adoption business. That investigation “concerning unethical adoption
practices” began on May 28 and is still underway, the Tarrant County
Sheriff’s Office said.
It’s unclear if that investigation includes her brokering of illicit
adoptions involving birth mothers living in the Marshall Islands. In
2019, Civil Beat identified Hall as one of several lawyers illegally arranging for such adoptions.
Hall said in communications with potential clients that she was
flying birth mothers from the Marshall Islands to the U.S. mainland
through Honolulu. A treaty between the two nations bars such
transactions.
In the jail inmate case in Texas, Hall discussed monetary agreements
in texts and deposited money into the inmate’s commissary accounts and
paid for time on their jail-issued tablets, according to an arrest
warrant affidavit.
“Those communications showed Hall explain that she will send adoption
packets and will continue to provide support for the inmates presuming
they do not scam her,” according to the affidavit.
These payments were illegal under Texas law, the affidavit says,
because the jail was providing everything the women needed for their
pregnancies, including health care, and so could not be justified as
necessary.
When one inmate decided to keep her baby, Hall responded in a text,
“Amber you’re in jail and a drug addict … You are a scammer and I will
be telling the prosecutor in your case all about how this family
supported you since November and you scammed them WITH THE HELP OF YOUR
BOYFRIEND.”
In another case, one inmate provided Hall with the name of another inmate who was pregnant.
Hall later texted the pregnant inmate, according to the affidavit.
“If you have family members who can take the child, that is great,”
she wrote. “Or if you will be out of jail by the time the child is born,
that is great too. But if you still won’t be in a position to raise a
child … we can help you even when your are not in jail.”
Hall offered to put $100 a week on the inmate’s “books.” At another
point she promised $2,500 “when you get out,” the affidavit says, or
would make the weekly payments to the inmate accounts.
Hall warned the woman to tell the nurses at the hospital where she
delivered that she was planning to give up the child for adoption
because otherwise child welfare workers would be called.
“I can get them to close their case if I know you have told the
social worker and nurses that you have an adoption plan,” Hall texted,
according to the affidavit.
In 2019, while arranging Marshallese adoptions, Hall told would-be
adoptive parents that the adoption fee would include payments to
“helpers in Honolulu” who would pick up the Marshallese woman and her
baby at the airport and drive them to a hotel to await the flight to the
mainland.
In one text, Hall told a client that “it’s easier to control” the
birth mothers flown from the Marshall Islands, compared to Marshallese
women already in Arkansas, “because we buy the tickets. That way they
can’t change the tickets. We placed 3 in the past 3 weeks.”
One client told Civil Beat that Hall offered to match her with a
birth mother living in the Marshall Islands, but that she would have to
cover the airfare. Another told a similar story — after an agreement
with a woman already in the U.S. fell through, Hall offered a baby born
in the Marshall Islands.
“They fly from the M.I. to Hawaii and then to Dallas,” Hall texted the client.
The
Marshall Islands has a tradition of informal adoption, but the practice
of permanently severing a parent’s rights is relatively rare. (Jessica
Terrell/Civil Beat/2018)
Hall worked with a well-known adoption fixer named Justin Aine, who
in 2019 was charged in the Marshall Islands with human trafficking. Aine
left the Marshall Islands after being charged and was seen soon after
in Arkansas, the home of a large Marshallese population, where he was
known to be an adoption facilitator.
Five days after Civil Beat reported on Hall’s activities, an accreditation agency suspended her
from continuing to do international adoptions. Two months later, that
agency — the Intercountry Adoption Accreditation and Maintenance Entity —
canceled Hall’s accreditation for
failing to comply with standards. IAAME is the only agency authorized
by the federal government to screen international agencies, as required
by law.
Adoptions of children from the Marshall Islands have long been prone
to exploitation. The practice of permanently severing a parent’s
relationship to a child, common in the U.S. and other Western countries,
is virtually unknown in the Marshall Islands.
Instead, it’s common for children to live in another household for a
while and then return to their birth parents. Marshallese birth mothers
have said they did not understand the implications of giving up their
children for adoption in the U.S. and were devastated to find that they
would never see them again.
(Patricia Lim\KUT) The trail along Shoal Creek was once used by Comanches and other Indigenous tribes in the region.
excerpt:
Remnants of history around us
Austin’s Indigenous history is complex and dates back at least 37,000 years,
according to some anthropologists’ estimates. How it takes shape in the
public discourse is often focused through a historical context, which
Circe Sturm, professor of Anthropology and Native American and
Indigenous Studies at UT Austin, finds problematic.
“We have a
state government that doesn’t acknowledge, doesn’t recognize, its own
Indigenous history,” said Sturm, who is a descendant of the federally
recognized Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
“When students
study about Indigenous people as part of their Texas history module,
it’s focused on the past and not on the present," she said, "in a way
that there’s a real disconnect between our understanding of our history
and our understanding of our present.”
A brief history lesson
In addition to
the Comanches, the Caddo, Cherokee, Coahuiltecan, Lipan Apache,
Karankawa, Tonkawa and Wichita tribes also claimed Central Texas as part
of their territory. They were incredibly diverse, speaking numerous
languages, adopting multiple beliefs and creation stories — and all
living off this land differently.
Then in the mid-16th century, European settlers first came to the interior of Texas.
They
brought waves of infectious disease — including epidemics of smallpox,
measles and cholera — that had widespread impacts on Texas’ American
Indian population.
Two sedentary tribes in Central Texas, the
Caddo and Wichita, were hit especially hard by disease. Their
livelihoods were dependent on agriculture, which was hard to sustain
when a big part of their population was wiped out. The nomadic tribes,
like the Coahuiltecan, maintained their hunting and gathering lifestyle.
In that sense they may have been more equipped to distance themselves
from outbreaks, but that still didn’t guarantee survival.
So while Austin’s Indigenous history may not be evident with historical
markers, it’s deeply rooted in the city’s landscape. Because after all,
this area once was — and in some ways still is — Indigenous land.
Intervening Tribes Press Release (released before the Tribal brief with over 400 tribal signatories):
Majority
of U.S. States, 75 Members of Congress and more than 30 Organizations
File Amicus Briefs in Support of Native American Families and Children
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, 26 states and the District of
Columbia, 75 members of Congress and more than 30 organizations filed
friend-of-the-court briefs before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
support of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
in Brackeen v. Bernhardt. Cherokee Nation Principal Chief
Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Morongo Band of Mission Indians Chairman Robert
Martin, Oneida Nation Chairman Tehassi Hill and Quinault Indian Nation
President Fawn Sharp issued the following statement
regarding the amicus briefs:
“We are thrilled to see that more than half of all states across the
country, 75 members of Congress and dozens of leading organizations are
taking a stand for the best interests of Indian children and families.
This continuous support from across the political
spectrum is a testament to the critical role that ICWA plays in
promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.
Together, we are fighting back against the meritless attacks on ICWA. We
are confident that the Fifth Circuit will again stand
on the side of families and children by upholding the law.”
The Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation and
Quinault Nation are co-defendants in the case, defending the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) against unwarranted attacks on the law’s
constitutionality.
For more than 40 years, ICWA has provided a process for determining the
best interests of Indian children in the adoption and foster care
systems. The tribes are arguing to defend ICWA alongside the Trump
administration, the U.S. Department of Justice, and
the U.S. Department of Interior. The case will be reheard on
January 22, 2020.
The amicus briefs filed by the following States – Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin – as well as the
District of Columbia, can be found here.
The amicus briefs from members of Congress can be found here,
and the amicus briefs from leading organizations here.
Amici include organizations and political leaders from across the
country spanning the political spectrum, and the U.S. states are
represented by attorneys general from both the Republican and Democratic
parties. They also include law
professors and Native
women writing in support of ICWA.
In 2017, individual plaintiffs Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a couple from
Texas, along with the state attorneys general in Texas, Louisiana, and
Indiana, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and its now-former
Secretary Ryan Zinke to challenge ICWA. The
Morongo, Quinault, Oneida and Cherokee tribes intervened as defendants
in the case, and their recent brief
can be found here.
On August 9, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that
the Indian Child Welfare Act is constitutional and serves the best
interests of children and families. On October 1, 2019, plaintiffs in Brackeen v. Bernhardt chose to continue their
attacks on Indian children and tribal families and requested an en banc rehearing before the Fifth Circuit, which the court granted.
There is broad, bipartisan support against this misguided attack on a
law that is crucial for protecting the well-being of Indian children and
Indian sovereignty. In addition to states and members of Congress, the
Trump administration has strongly defended
ICWA and its protections for Indian children, explaining that ICWA is
an appropriate exercise of Congress’s authority to legislate in the
field of Indian affairs and does not violate the Tenth Amendment or
equal protection laws.
For additional information on this case and the Indian Child Welfare Act please visit: www.ProtectIndianKids.com
Editor's Note: ICWA is the only thing that can prevent more child trafficking in Indian Country - it happened before and it will happen again.
The Fifth Circuit overturned the Northern District of Texas today with
strong language supporting ICWA. The Court found that the plaintiffs did
have standing, but found against them on all other counts. There is a
dissent forthcoming from Judge Owens.
Equal Protection:
We begin by determining whether ICWA’s definition of “Indian child” is a
race-based or political classification and, consequently, which level
of scrutiny applies. The district court concluded that ICWA’s “Indian
Child” definition was a race-based classification.
We conclude that this was error.
We disagree with the district court’s reasoning and conclude that
Mancari controls here. As to the district court’s first distinction,
Mancari’s holding does not rise or fall with the geographical location
of the Indians receiving “special treatment.”
Anti-Commandeering:
We examine the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of ICWA
below and conclude that they preempt conflicting state law and do not
violate the anticommandeering doctrine.
Non-Delegation:
We find this argument unpersuasive. It is well established that tribes
have “sovereignty over both their members and their territory.” See
Mazurie, 419 U.S. at 557 (emphasis added)"
For a tribe to exercise its authority to determine tribal membership and
to regulate domestic relations among its members, it must necessarily
be able to regulate all Indian children, irrespective of their location.
Authority to Issue Regulations
Here, section 1952’s text is substantially similar to the language in
Mourning, and the Final Rule’s binding standards for Indian child
custody proceedings are reasonably related to ICWA’s purpose of
establishing minimum federal standards in child custody proceedings
involving Indian children. See 25 U.S.C. § 1902. Thus, the Final Rule
is a reasonable exercise of the broad authority granted to the BIA by
Congress in ICWA section 1952.
Conclusion:
For these reasons, we conclude that Plaintiffs had standing to bring all
claims and that ICWA and the Final Rule are constitutional because they
are based on a political classification that is rationally related to
the fulfillment of Congress’s unique obligation
toward Indians; ICWA preempts conflicting state laws and does not
violate the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine; and ICWA and the
Final Rule do not violate the nondelegation doctrine. We also conclude
that the Final Rule implementing the ICWA is valid
because the ICWA is constitutional, the BIA did not exceed its
authority when it issued the Final Rule, and the agency’s interpretation
of ICWA section 1915 is reasonable.
The federal lawsuit challenges a 1978 law that sought to reckon with America’s history of discriminating against Native Americans. Does it hold up 40 years later?
The Brackeens decided to fight the court’s ruling, which would send A.L.M. to an unrelated Navajo family (his biological mother is a member of the Navajo Nation) in New Mexico whom he had met once. They printed out the eight-page law and pored over it. They heard, on a foster-care podcast, about a lawyer who specialized in ICWA. After connecting with him, they soon had a powerful legal team comprising family attorneys and high-profile lawyers from a national firm. While Chad and Jennifer made their case in state court for adopting A.L.M., their lawyers sued the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs.
ICWA is one of the only parts of the foster-care system that actually
works, argues Kathryn Fort, a Michigan State law professor and one of
the nation’s foremost ICWA experts. Fort is one of the lawyers
representing the tribes in the Brackeen case. “ICWA is trying to get
better outcomes for a small group of children in a system that has just
horrific outcomes,” she told me. White social workers often approach her
at conferences to complain about the law in a way that plays on
antiquated stereotypes about Native people. “I've had many social
workers ask me about why we let ‘these people’ play their Indian card at
the last minute,” she said. Fort is white; they assume, she said, that
she’ll be on their side.
The Freedom to Serve Children Act, an anti-Native adoption law in Texas, protects the rights of child welfare providers to discriminate.
This law is unlikely to create problems for Indians who are willing
to hew to the Christian line, but Texas is home to lots of Indians who
follow the Native American Church.
It appears to me from the outside that NAC people are as Christian as
Mormons are, but I doubt that most Christians in a position to place
children for adoption would see it that way, or know the difference
between peyote and heroin.
Then there are always some Indians still doing their best to follow traditional beliefs. (Where we say “traditional,” many Christians
who demanded this bill would say “heathen.”) Other Indians let go of
their traditional beliefs but still did not buy what the missionaries
were selling. They end up like a lot of white people: not atheists or
even agnostics but rather “unchurched.”
