BLOGGER changed, not allowing us to UPDATE this back-up blog

(UPDATED 726/2025) issues with blogger are preventing this
Showing posts with label violations of ICWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violations of ICWA. Show all posts

Saturday, May 28, 2022

Exposing and Repairing the Devastation Caused by the Indian Adoption Project

repost from December 2011

 
 
St. John, snatched from his family when he was 4, says he was raised without his culture.



.
I’m an angry Indian,” Roger St. John, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, told the First Nations Repatriation Institute’s second annual adult adoptees summit. The elite panel included child-welfare specialists, judges, lawyers, community activists and scholars. The most important experts, according to the organization’s founder/director, Sandra White Hawk, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, were adult adoptees—such as St. John—who related their experiences at the three-day meeting at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities in St. Paul in 2011.

 
“I’m more than glad to tell you I’m pissed off,” continued St. John, a 49-year-old truck driver with dark hair pulled back in a ponytail. “I was the youngest of 16 children, grabbed at the age of 4, along with three older brothers—no paperwork, nothing. The other kids in the family escaped because they took off.”  Soon, St. John and his siblings ended up in New York City at Thanksgiving time. The year was 1966: “We were on the front page of the newspaper, along with lots of good talk about the holiday and adoption. We were brought up without our culture, which took a terrible toll on our lives. I grew up angry and miserable.”
 
St. John’s experience was replicated all over Indian country in the mid-to-late 20th century. The boarding-school era that had begun in the late 1800s was winding down and the abusive residential schools set up to isolate and assimilate Native children were being closed down or turned over to the tribes, a process that was largely completed by the 1970s. Meanwhile, another means of separating Native children from their communities was gathering steam.
 
The Indian Adoption Project was a federal program that acquired Indian children from 1958 to 1967 with the help of the prestigious Child Welfare League of America; a successor organization, the Adoption Resource Exchange of North America, functioned from 1966 until the early 1970s. Churches were also involved. In the Southwest, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints took thousands of Navajo children to live in Mormon homes and work on Mormon farms, and the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations swept many more Indian youngsters into residential institutions they ran nationwide, from which some children were then fostered or adopted out. As many as one third of Indian children were separated from their families between 1941 and 1967, according to a 1976 report by the Association on American Indian Affairs.
 
“People have heard of the boarding-school era and know it was bad, but they don’t know our adoption era even exists,” said White Hawk, who was taken from her family on the Rosebud reservation as a toddler in the mid-1950s. “A few small studies of adult adoptees have been done, and we’re just learning how to talk about what happened. We need think tanks and conferences and scientific research to explore what occurred and how it affected us.”
 
Then, White Hawk said, that information can inform current Indian child-welfare cases. “When experts take the stand to testify in a child-welfare hearing [about placement of a child or termination of parental rights, for example], they need academic backup to explain the relationship between, for example, suicide and being disconnected from your culture,” she explained. “The courts want Ph.D.-level research to back up what we tell them.”
 
A paper by Carol Locust, Cherokee, describes Native adoptees suffering from what she calls Split Feather Syndrome—the damage caused by loss of tribal identity and growing up “different” in an inhospitable world. Lost Bird is another term researchers have used to refer to the group, recalling one of the earliest Indian adoptees. A Lakota infant who survived the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee sheltered by the frozen corpse of her mother was claimed as a war trophy by a general who named her Lost Bird, according to her biographer, Renée Sansome Flood in Lost Bird of Wounded Knee.
Thanks to copious newspaper coverage of the massacre and its aftermath, Lost Bird became her generation’s celebrity adoptee, but fame did not save her from a fate that was a harbinger for too many Native children. She endured intolerance and isolation, and when she rebelled as a teenager, was shipped back to her birth family, where she no longer fit in. After a stint in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show and the loss of three children—two died and she gave away the third, according to Flood—Lost Bird was felled by influenza in 1920, at the age of 30. “Throughout her life of prejudice, exploitation, poverty, misunderstanding and disease, she never gave up hope that one day she would find out where she really belonged,” Flood wrote.
 
At the summits and other events White Hawk has organized or spoken at since 2003, modern-day adoptees have recounted their dramatic life journeys, sometimes for the first time. “The stories vary from the most abusive to the most beautiful, but that’s not the point,” she said. “Even in loving families, Native adoptees live without a sense of who they are. Love doesn’t provide identity.”
 
“I never felt sorry for myself,” said St. John, “but if I ever got hurt, it wounded me to my soul, because I felt no one was there for me.” In recent years, he has found his birth mother and connected emotionally with his adoptive parents. “They were so young, in their 20s, when a priest convinced them to adopt four Sioux boys from South Dakota. It was too much—for all of us.”
 
During the adoption era almost any issue—from minor to serious—could precipitate the loss of an Indian child. Two Native people interviewed prior to the summit said they were separated from their families after hospital stays as young children, one for a rash, the other for tuberculosis. A third was seized at his baby-sitter’s home; when his mother tried to rescue him, she was jailed, he said. A fourth recalled that he was taken after his father died, though his mother did not want to give him up. A fifth described being snatched, along with siblings, because his grandfather was a medicine man who wouldn’t give up his traditional ways. As in St. John’s case, no home studies or comparable investigations appear to have been done to support the removals. “Indians had no way to stop white people from taking their kids,” said yet another interviewee. “We had no rights.”
 
Eighty-five percent of the Native children removed from their families from 1941 to 1967 were placed in non-Indian homes or institutions, said the Association on American Indian Affairs report. The aim, said White Hawk, was assimilation and extinction of the tribes as entities, as their younger generations were removed, year after year—just as it had been with the boarding schools.
 
“We can’t be afraid to use words like genocide,” said summit participant Anita Fineday, White Earth Band of Ojibwe, managing director of Casey Family Programs’ Indian child-welfare programs and a former chief judge at White Earth Tribal Nation. “The endgame, the official federal policy, was that the tribes wouldn’t exist.”
 
As Native adoptees struggle to recover their identities, some have trouble accessing their original birth certificates. Many states seal adoption records to protect the confidentiality of the process. “In a state that does this, you have to be a detective to find out where you’re from,” said White Hawk.
Or lucky. According to Sharon Whiterabbit, Ho-Chunk Nation, a business consultant and internationally known rights advocate, the son she’d given up as a teen mother found her because he lost his social security number. To get a new one, he had to petition the courts for his original birth certificate and, using the information he found there, tracked her down.
 
Could something be done on a tribal level to keep adoption records open and available for those who want them? Whiterabbit asked the group. This summit was about solutions, as well as problems, and Fineday had an answer: “Tribes have a right to know their members, so we can demand the records. We’re not requesting, though. We’re demanding. At White Earth, we were successful with this tack in a couple of cases. When the [adoption] documents arrived, I got goose bumps.”
 
Carrie Imus, director of social services for and former chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribal Nation, suggested that tribes do pre-enrollment of children who are being adopted out, to ease their return.
According to Terry Cross, Seneca Nation of Indians and founder and executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, nontribal child-welfare workers usually did not recognize the large support network that Native children enjoy: “In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, children were removed from Indian families because auntie was taking care of them, and the system called that neglect. But it was simply a different cultural way of meeting the child’s needs. To this day, social workers who remove Native children don’t know what an Indian family is and what supports are available
in the extended family and tribe.”
 
Decades of stolen children caused unresolved personal and community-wide grief and high rates of alcoholism, suicide and other social ills that stalk individuals and tribes to this day. “It took me years to realize nothing was wrong with me and the response I had to the trauma I’d experienced as an adoptee,” said Sandra Davidson, White Earth Band of Ojibwe and a program manager for Praxis International, a nonprofit dedicated to eliminating violence toward women and children.
 
Often referred to as “historical trauma,” the pain can’t be cured with quick-fix programs, said Cross. “In Canada, we looked at places where suicide is the highest, and it’s where the culture is most broken down,” he said. “In such cases, do you start suicide-prevention programs, or do you restore balance in the community through more self-governance? I have found that unless you change a community systemically, you can’t affect the symptoms of imbalance, such as suicide.”
 
Linear thinking—see a problem, apply a solution—is ineffective, he added. “Mainstream society’s services are so fractured. Medical doctors get the body, psychologists get the mind, judges get the social context, and clergy get the spirit. But, in fact, we are all whole people, and real solutions have to address that.”
 
Cross pointed to the sweat lodge as a way of caring for the whole person. “It’s done in groups and includes teachers, stories and protocols for how to conduct oneself, which relate to the social context,” he said. “You sweat, and you experience aromatic herbs, which heal the body; you participate in prayers and songs, which are in the realm of spirit; and when you come out, you feel better and have moments of clarity that are aspects of mind.”
 
That type of healing is required for entire communities, as well as for individuals, and is a part of what Cross called the “remembering” of indigenous cultures. Colonization has pulled indigenous cultures apart worldwide, as colonizers have taken land and resources. “They also usurp sovereignty and attack spirituality,” he said. “The last item is removal of children to educate them in the language and worldview of the colonizer. Now, though, we Native people are remembering our traditions and remembering our communities. We’re healing from within.”
 
The adoptees’ stories must be articulated so they can heal, so their communities can be restored, and so the experiences can help remedy Indian country’s ongoing child-welfare crisis, said White Hawk. The percentage of Native children cared for outside the home remains disproportionately high across the nation, despite the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a 1978 law that sought to ameliorate the situation—but has yet to do so.  In Alaska, Native children make up 18 percent of the child population but 55 percent of the children in foster care; in South Dakota, Indian kids are 15 percent of the state’s youngsters, but 53 percent of those in foster care. Other states topping the list for skewed numbers include Minnesota—where the overrepresentation of Native kids in foster care increased substantially from 2004 to 2009—Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota.
 
Another summit attendee, Gina Jackson, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, is educating judges through a model-court program of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, in Nevada. The program helps jurists understand ICWA and relevant best practices. “We’ve signed up 66 jurisdictions and will help them work for compliance,” she said.
 
Education of the judiciary is crucial, said Arizona state judge Kathleen Quigley: “ICWA cases are not the bulk of a judge’s work, so many are not familiar with the law.” And the concept of the “active efforts” needed under ICWA to find and notify a child’s tribe of a possible removal from the family is not dealt with sufficiently in case law, she said.
 
“At this meeting, it has been critical for me to hear from folks who’ve been in the system and to understand how being taken from their families and communities affected their lives,” Jackson said. “I want everyone who works with kids and families to hear these voices.” Michael Petoskey, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and chief judge of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, agreed. “Thank you for sharing your stories,” he told the survivors of the adoption era. “We judges may underestimate the impact on people’s lives when we terminate parental rights.”
 
“Your saying that is medicine for those of us who’ve been through this,” White Hawk responded. Going forward, the repatriation institute will work to affect policy and will organize a day of prayer and healing for Friday, November 2, 2012. “We’re hoping to have events at state capitols nationwide,” said George McCauley, Omaha, head of the Institute’s board of directors.
 
Jerry Dearly, the renowned Oglala Lakota storyteller and educator who serves as White Hawk’s advisor, informed the group that healing is about identity, understood on a profound level. “You have to find out who you really are, who you really were,” he said. “Go to a quiet place where it’s just you and the Creator. All of us are beautiful, but you have to believe in yourself.”
 
“Now I have cancer and am waiting for an operation,” St. John told the summit. “But I believe in myself, and I can survive anything.”

SOURCE: https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/native-americans-expose-the-adoption-era-and-repair-its-devastation


[And each story like this one will finally change this devastating history... Megwetch everyone...Trace]

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

South Dakota Tribes Win Federal ICWA Case, Oglala Sioux v. Van Hunnick

This is important, a true victory and it won't be the last...Trace



The 45 page order granting partial summary judgment is HERE, with a judgment order granting injunctive and declaratory relief forthcoming in May.
The court finds that Judge Davis, States Attorney Vargo, Secretary Valenti and Ms. Van Hunnick developed and implemented policies and procedures for the removal of Indian children from their parents’ custody in violation of the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The case directly addressed section 1922 emergency removal standard of evidence and return of the child; and due process claims at those emergency hearings (48-hour hearing) of notice, the right of parents to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, attorney representation, and a decision based on evidence at that hearing.
Among many other things, the judge addresses both the old and new Guidelines (which specifically mentioned this case):
A simple examination of these administrative materials should have convinced the defendants that their policies and procedures were not in conformity with ICWA § 1922, the DOI Guidelines or the Guidelines promulgated by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. Indian children, parents and tribes deserve better.
The order grants summary judgment on  the ICWA violations AND the Due Process ones:
Judge Davis and the other defendants failed to protect Indian parents’ fundamental rights to a fair hearing by not allowing them to present evidence to contradict the State’s removal documents. The defendants failed by not allowing the parents to confront and cross-examine DSS witnesses. The defendants failed by using documents as a basis for the court’s decisions which were not provided to the parents and which were not received in evidence at the 48-hour hearings.
This is amazing–congratulations and many thanks to all involved. Especially to the families.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

This Week In American Indian News: ICWA Summit Off?

available on Amazon and all ereaders
We lead today with an update on the Lakota/Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] summit scheduled for mid-May. I did not think this was public, but as of Saturday morning, the Associated Press is reporting it in a local South Dakota news outlet, so it's now out there.
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the "Lakota Spring," including a pair of upcoming hearings organized by the Standing Rock Sioux Nation in preparation for the summit. The BIA agreed to the summit after members of Congress, under pressure from Sioux tribal members, demanded an investigation into reports that South Dakota state officials intentionally engaged in repeated violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] by improperly removing Indian children from their families and placing them in white foster or adoptive homes. In any other context, we'd call that what it is: Kidnapping. In South Dakota, it's called capitalism, since it's a moneymaker for both white families and the state.
Well, after much apparent hemming and hawing, the BIA has released its agenda for the summit - an agenda, I remind you, that was supposed to be a joint project between BIA officials and tribal leaders.
And it's a whitewash. In the multiple senses of that term.
Yes, I do know this, because I've seen the agenda.
Standing Rock officials agreed to this summit on condition that it would address the facts of the kidnapping of their children and work to correct the ongoing violations. They did not agree to help cover them up. Among their very reasonable conditions was that former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk, the original architect of the ICWA, be included in the program to speak about the conditions that compelled him to act in the first place. (Here's a hint: The conditions in 1970s Indian Country looked very much like the conditions in South Dakota today.)
I've seen no official public response from the BIA yet, and I'm not taking bets at this point as to whether the summit will actually occur.

Read more here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/29/1205473/--New-Day-This-Week-In-American-Indian-News-ICWA-Summit-Off-Racists-Apps-Movies-Powwows#

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

LAKOTA SPRING: PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SOUTH DAKOTA ICWA SCANDAL

 
 photo HoweandSheehanofLPLP_zps09c2ee71.jpg They call it the Lakota Spring: Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation are partnering with the Lakota Peoples Law Project [LPLP] to engage in a massive, far-reaching organizing effort to recover their children, stolen from their families in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA]. The LPLP and Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] officials are scheduled to co-host a three-day summit, May 15-17, on the current state of Native foster care and ICWA violations affecting Lakota children. To prepare for the summit, tribal officials are convening two public hearings: the first on April 20, from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, at the Grand River Casino in Mobridge, S.D.; the second on April 28th, from 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM, at the Prairie Nights Casino in Fort Yates, N.D. The purpose of the hearings is two-fold:
At these hearings Lakota relatives who have lost children to the foster care system will be invited to speak, on camera, about their experiences with the Department of Social Services. . . . The Standing Rock tribal government is making a substantial investment to explore having its own family welfare system and to secure long term direct federal funding to support it.

In addition, the "LPLP is also circulating an online petition to encourage members of Congress to attend the May summit."
The push for the summit with the BIA comes out of a report that Lakota tribal officials recently submitted to Congress, highlighting the serial violations of the ICWA that are routine in South Dakota. The report, combined with previous efforts on the part of the tribes and the LPLP, demonstrated a deliberate pattern of stealing Lakota children from extended families perfectly able, willing, and qualified to care for them, and illegally placing them with white families — in part, for "perverse financial incentives." The result was a hellish record of physical, psychological, and even sexual abuse (including rape) for many Indian children, and State officials subsequently prosecuted two of their own child welfare officials for blowing the whistle on these crimes.
For historical background, see Denise Oliver Velez's front-page piece from yesterday on "Stolen Generations," and Meteor Blades's diary on the long-term effects of stealing children from their families (some of whom are Kossacks today). For greater background about the current "removals" going on among the Lakota, read the LPLP's diaries on the cover-up of rape and other abuse of Indian children in the South Dakota foster care system, and on NPR's coverage of the report to Congress. See also my own diary on the racism and "perverse financial incentives" that keep the illegal practice of Indian child removal going strong.
If you live in the area of either hearing, you can help in two ways: First, if you know of Native families who may be affected by these issues, please help spread the word. Second, contact your elected representatives, and encourage them to support the efforts of the Standing Rock members (and those of other affected Lakota nations) to recover their stolen children and enforce compliance with the ICWA.
Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/15/1201757/--New-Day-This-Week-In-American-Indian-News-Stolen-Masks-Stolen-Children-Sherman-Alexie

Thursday, February 7, 2013

NPR: SD Tribes accuse state of violating ICWA

Listen to the Story

For years now, council members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in South Dakota have watched as the state's Department of Social Services removed children from the reservation and placed many of them in white foster homes, far from tribal lands. Many of the children were later adopted, losing their connection to their families and heritage.
"I've seen it firsthand," says Brandon Sazue, chairman of the Crow Creek tribe.
Derrin Yellow Robe, 3, stands in his great-grandparents' backyard on the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota. He was taken off the reservation by South Dakota's Department of Social Services in July 2009 and spent a year and a half in foster care before being returned to his family.
Derrin Yellow Robe, 3, stands in his great-grandparents' backyard on the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota. He was taken off the reservation by South Dakota's Department of Social Services in July 2009 and spent a year and a half in foster care before being returned to his family.
John Poole/NPR
 
 
Sazue says the state has long overstepped its authority.
"That would be like United States going into a foreign country and saying, 'Hey, I'm taking your kid because of this or that,' " he said. "I mean, this is within the boundaries of the Crow Creek Sioux Indian reservation, and as far as I'm concerned, we are the government."
Read more: http://www.npr.org/2013/02/06/171310945/south-dakota-tribes-accuse-state-of-violating-indian-welfare-act
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/05/1184630/-Laura-Sullivan-of-NPR-to-Air-Story-Tomorrow-on-Report-to-Congress-by-South-Dakota-s-ICWA-Directors

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

NPR: Lack of ICWA Compliance, Genocide

Bryan Brewer, Tribal Council Chairman, Oglala Sioux Tribe (Pine Ridge)
It has to be exposed nationwide what [South Dakota is] doing to our Lakota people. It’s a form of genocide (Chairman Brewer).

NPR: South Dakota Tribal ICW Directors’ Studies on State’s Incredible Lack of Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act

Here, via Pechanga.
An excerpt:
South Dakota’s Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) directors have issued two reports to Congress: “Reviewing the Facts: An Assessment of the Accuracy of NPR’s ‘Native Foster Care – Lost Children, Shattered Families,’” and “Is South Dakota Over-Prescribing Drugs to Native American Foster Kids?” The first of these reports cites evidence that South Dakota’s Department of Social Services (DSS) is placing 87% of Indian children into non-Indian homes or group care, even while anywhere from 20-43% of licensed Native American foster homes in the state sit empty. This, according to the authors of the report, is in clear violation of the federal ICWA law which requires states to keep Native foster children with their extended families and tribes whenever possible. The study also affirms NPR’s assessment that the state’s ICWA violations are partly motivated by the tens of millions of federal dollars that South Dakota receives for placements of Native children each year.
 
This is HUGE NEWS! Good movement forward! I am so honored to share this with you... Trace

Monday, January 28, 2013

Judges to improve compliance with ICWA

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Bulletin to Improve Compliance with ICWA
 
Here

"...The training on the history and spirit of ICWA, including listening to the stories of the adoptees was life changing! It was worth flying across the country just to hear..." 
 – Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, Florida Statewide Model Court

This pdf is very insightful and significant - it's about time every state complies with ICWA! It's long overdue...Trace

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Lakota Child Rescue Project: SD violates ICWA each year

Archive photo
For 100 years, Native American children have been removed from their families. It began in the 1880s under a US government policy of assimilation: children as young as five were taken from their homes, shipped to boarding schools, and instructed in the ways of white culture. Today, a generation of children is once again losing its connection to its traditions. This time, it's through state-run foster care. Every year in South Dakota the state takes nearly 700 Native American children, when some 95% of them are placed in non-Native foster and state-run care—in direct violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
Why? Each year the state receives almost $100 million in federal money for foster care services.

Watch The Lakota Child Rescue Project -  on YouTube (Posted by Lakota Law)

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=JDMiWmI_ bwE&feature= channel&list= UL

#####

Janice Howe receiving letters of support:
The response to Janice Howe's story on NPR was overwhelming. This video shows her receiving the first 1200 letters of support from around the country. Danny Sheehan, the chief counsel for Lakota People's Law Project personally delivered the letters.

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=gji9F23ssUY

Thursday, August 30, 2012

UPDATED Another violation of ICWA in Arizona

NEWS:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/arizona-appeals-court-upholds-placement-of-navajo-boy-with-non-american-indian-family/2012/08/29/213b8d48-f21b-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html

 

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Deviation from ICWA/BIA Placement Preferences

by Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Security:
An excerpt:
The Navajo Nation (“the Nation”) appeals the juvenile court’s judgment finding good cause to deviate from the placement preferences set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 to 1963 (2006), and allowing the child (“Z.”) to remain with his current non-relative, non-Indian adoptive placement. We affirm. The juvenile court properly found good cause to deviate from ICWA placement preferences because the placement family provided good care for Z., Z. had attached and bonded with the family, Z. would suffer severe distress if he was removed from that placement, the placement family would expose Z. to his Navajo culture, and the placement family had been approved to adopt Z. While the interest of the Nation and the Congressionally-presumed interest of Z. in maintaining his heritage weighed against a finding of good cause to deviate from ICWA’s preferences, on this record we cannot say the court erred in weighing all these interests.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Part One: Victims of Adoption and Lies


Trace was born in 1956 and legally adopted in 1958.
By Trace A. DeMeyer

I woke up with thoughts: there are two victims of adoption who need help and not necessarily from each other: the adoptee and the first mother. Each has its own burden and neither can heal the other.


Speaking with adoptee friends on Facebook, many added their own ideas when I posted my thoughts.

One friend injected: what about the mother who made the choice (freely) to give her up as a baby.
Well, that is true - she was free to decide - but also consider she had the adoption industry, churches, family and society telling her (insisting) that was her only option: Give up her baby to new parents.
Had this mother known her child would suffer emotionally from being adopted, would she have made the same choice?
(No one imagined a child was injured or hurt being adopted - not until recently.)
We know this mother had to live with her choice and live with the loss of her child. That was obviously a burden.
Finding and meeting her child again in reunion - after many years - will not and cannot reverse or ease or erase that pain and loss.  Each mother who relinquished a baby will have to deal with this on her own terms, and hopefully receive counselling, and find support from other mothers who also lost their child to adoption.
Some mothers are adopting their child back, what I call "adoption in reverse."

One adoptee friend found out the social workers told her natural mother that she was being placed with a doctor's family - so I guess that would have put her mother's mind at ease - thinking of the prosperity and safety her baby girl would have had growing up. But the truth was my friend was not placed with a doctor's family.
If her mother had found out this was a lie, how would she have reacted? Wouldn't she worry about her baby and carry that burden for years?
In my friend's case, her birthmother never told the man (the birthfather) she was expecting his child. It's possible my friend's dad would not have allowed this adoption to take place. He loved kids and would have raised his daughter on his reservation in Michigan. Why? The Ojibwe used kinship adoption (babies are adopted by relatives). 

[Since the 1900s, governments swept up children with their Indian Adoption Projects (which were closed adoptions with non-Indian parents). Adoption meant assimilation. It was meant to make the child "white."]

Even though her mother did tell the social workers her baby was also Indian, did it matter? Back then, no. This was in the 1960s. The social workers would prefer not to mention a child had some Indian blood.  Even social workers displayed overt racism and wrote lies in the paperwork. They practiced "matching" which meant a "mixed race child" who looked white would not have to be told their ancestry was American Indian. 

My friend's adoption (like my own) was before the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
If it happened after 1978, and social workers knew my friend was also Indian, the tribe and her father would have been notified. The tribes would've handled the baby and her placement. That's federal law in every state now (and sadly it is not always upheld, even now in 2012.) Last year, it was reported 32 states are in violation of the ICWA.

Each story like this gets complicated with lies and omissions of what is truth. My friend's mother was a victim of lies and so was her Ojibwe father - who was never told.

My point here is the adoption industry created "lies" for everyone to believe. 

PART TWO will continue in a week... Please share your thoughts in the comments... Trace 

 

Friday, August 24, 2012

Yurok Traditional Adoption

Cal. COA Decides ICWA Case involving Yurok Traditional Adoption Statute

by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Turtle Talk on the web
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
In 2010, legislation was enacted establishing “tribal customary adoption” as an alternative permanent plan for a dependent Indian child who cannot be reunited with his or her parents. Tribal customary adoption is intended to provide an Indian child with the same stability and permanency as traditional adoption under state law without the termination of parental rights, which is contrary to the cultural beliefs of many Native American tribes. In this case, the Yurok Tribe (the tribe) intervened in the dependency proceedings prior to the jurisdictional hearing and recommended tribal customary adoption as the permanent plan for the minor. The tribe now contends the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights and selecting traditional adoption as the permanent plan. We disagree with the tribe's contention that the court was required to select tribal customary adoption as the child's permanent plan simply because the tribe elected such a plan but conclude that, in the absence of a finding that tribal customary adoption would be detrimental to the minor, the court erred in failing to select such a permanent plan in this case.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Cherokee father keeps his baby after #Adoption custody dispute

Split South Carolina SCT Complies with ICWA and Affirms Return of Child to Cherokee Father

by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
We do not take lightly the grave interests at stake in this case. However, we are constrained by the law and convinced by the facts that the transfer of custody to Father was required under the law. Adoptive Couple are ideal parents who have exhibited the ability to provide a loving family environment for Baby Girl. Thus, it is with a heavy heart that we affirm the family court order. Because this case involves an Indian child, the ICWA applies and confers conclusive custodial preference to the Indian parent. All of the rest of our determinations flow from this reality. While we have the highest respect for the deeply felt opinions expressed by the dissent, we simply see this case as one in which the dictates of federal Indian law supersede state law where the adoption and custody of an Indian child is at issue. Father did not consent to Baby Girl's adoption, and we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that custody by him would result in serious emotional or physical harm to Baby Girl. Thus, under the federal standard we cannot terminate Father's parental rights. For these reasons, we affirm the family court's denial of the adoption decree and transfer of custody to Father.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Enrollment issues affecting ICWA children

Archival Photo
Convincing me courts are doing their best to protect Indian Children today - it's just not happening.
The amount of urban Indians who are enrolled or not is part of the problem and a real issue here.
Here is a case from Michigan where the mother said her children were Delaware and entitled to protections under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
Allowing time for tribes to respond is a big issue since many tribes have few or overworked enrollment officers who can't always get historical information to enroll their members and/or their children who live off rez. If tribes did manage enrollment at birth, it would certainly help.

http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/20120628_c304669_68_304669-opn.pdf

Making more Native children adoptees is not a solution. Helping American Indian families stay together is federal law!

Sunday, May 20, 2012

ICWA: By The Numbers #NDN #Adoption


This information is from a presentation I gave May 18th at the Minnesota CLE.

In 2011 there were 199 ICWA cases (249 in the allstate-cs Westlaw database using “Indian Child Welfare Act” search. 50 were not ICWA cases). Of those 122 (61%) were California notice or inquiry cases. This is less than the last time we checked in 2007 (308 cases). The state continues to remand nearly 50% of all the notice cases (58 remanded, 48%). The only state even close to California on notice cases is Michigan, with 8 last year, and 5 remanded.

Of the family lore cases, there was only one additional case in 2011 from the same lower court as the others and none in 2012.

Once we take out the California notice cases, active efforts cases are the next most litigated cases (24). A large number of those are out of Alaska, and even ones that aren’t out of Alaska are using Alaska cases to define active efforts.
Otherwise, there were 8, transfer cases, 7 QEW cases, 7 notice and inquiry cases (non-CA and MI), 6 burden of proof cases, 5 placement preferences, 5 jurisdiction cases, 1 due process, 1 standing case. There were a number of cases that were ICWA cases, but didn’t really use or discuss ICWA in the final decision, which was strange. In this paragraph, some cases were counted twice, because active efforts and burden of proof, for example, are usually discussed in the same case. We’re still deciding how best to classify those.
So far in 2012, there have been 71 cases. 33 (46%) of those were California notice and inquiry cases, and 48% (16) were remanded. There were 5 Michigan notice cases. Nationwide, there were only 2.
Our current assumption is that as notice cases fall in numbers, other cases will rise–this is based on the hopeful idea that a decrease in notice cases means courts might actually be doing notice properly. Once notice is done properly and ICWA applies and/or the tribe is involved, it seems logical that other areas (specifically transfer, active efforts, and placement preferences) of ICWA will be litigated more often.
In 2012 there were 8 active efforts, 7 placement preferences, 6 transfer, 2 other notice and inquiry, and 1 QEW case.
2012 has had two disturbing private adoption cases as well. See our coverage of those here and here.
Finally, we’ve also been keeping track of all transfer cases since the passage of the law. So far our spreadsheet has 123 cases total. 37 (30%) of those have either transferred cases to tribal court or reversed a denial of transfer and ordered a hearing on the issue (7). 60 cases have affirmed an initial denial of transfer. 21 cases have reversed an initial transfer. Only 19 cases have reversed a denial of transfer. 3 did not consider the issue of transfer.
When a GAL is involved in a transfer case (60 of all transfer cases), 40 times the GAL opposed transfer, 3 times the GAL supported transfer and in 17 cases it was impossible to determine the GAL’s position. When the GAL opposes transfer, the court agrees 80% of the time (32 cases). There are only 8 cases where the GAL’s position against transfer is known when the court disagrees and transfers.
Other areas we’re still looking at in the transfer cases is the different results from state appellate courts versus state supreme courts. This might change the way we ultimately count an outcome, but in this post each decision is counted individually, even if it the case was appealed up.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Michigan Supreme Court honors ICWA

Michigan SCT Adopts “Conditional Reversal” Rule for Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Notice Violations


An excerpt from Justice Cavanagh’s unanimous opinion:
While it is impossible to articulate a precise rule that will encompass every possible factual situation, in light of the interests protected by ICWA, the potentially high costs of erroneously concluding that notice need not be sent, and the relatively low burden of erring in favor of requiring notice, we think the standard for triggering the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a) must be a cautionary one. Therefore, we hold first that sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which tribal membership might be based suffices to trigger the notice requirement. We hold also that a parent of an Indian child cannot waive the separate and independent ICWA rights of an Indian child’s tribe and that the trial court must maintain a documentary record including, at minimum, (1) the original or a copy of each actual notice personally served or sent via registered mail pursuant to 25 USC 1912(a) and (2) the original or a legible copy of the return receipt or other proof of service showing delivery of the notice.1
Finally, we hold that the proper remedy for an ICWA-notice violation is to conditionally reverse the trial court and remand for resolution of the ICWA-notice issue.
Briefs are here and here.


HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY - this protects Indian children - so let's have all the other states do this and follow ICWA rules in every case! Trace

Saturday, April 28, 2012

NICWA Conference Addresses Challenges of the Indian Child Welfare Act

NICWA Conference Addresses Challenges of the Indian Child Welfare Act

Excerpt:
"Increasing national and state compliance with the ICWA law includes getting accurate information out to the public about the real story of the act and how it impacts Indian children and families, said NICWA Executive Director Terry Cross. To that end, much of the conference focused on strategies in working with the media.
“The media plays a crucial role in telling this story,” Cross said. “Typically the mainstream press picks up a story regarding ICWA only when a non-Indian family has somehow been injured.”
Conference attendees were encouraged to work with the press and alert the NICWA office about local stories involving the ICWA law. “We are finding that it’s possible to defuse an explosive situation by simply getting factual information out to the press,” Cross said...."

Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/04/27/nicwa-conference-addresses-challenges-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act-110270 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/04/27/nicwa-conference-addresses-challenges-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act-110270#ixzz1tG1Xblya

Mary Annette Pember did a fantastic job reporting on this conference!! Trace

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Indian Child Welfare, three interviews

Click here: http://stephaniewoodard.blogspot.com/

Indian Child Welfare Act, three interviews; part one

By Stephanie Woodard
Excerpt:
Native parents face extraordinary hurdles in keeping their children—including cultural misunderstandings and legal barriers that are unimaginable to many non-Native people. In this second decade of the 21st century, American Indian children in states across the country are still taken from their families and placed in foster care or adoptive homes at a much higher rate than other kids—just as they were before the passage of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal statute intended to help keep Native families intact.
In Alaska, Native children make up 20 percent of the child population but 51 percent of those a state agency has placed in foster care; Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, North Dakota and Washington also have highly skewed numbers. In Minnesota, the percentage of Native children in foster care isn’t just high, it’s gotten worse in recent years. “Disproportionalities exist nationwide at every stage in the process, starting right from the initial reports of possible abuse or neglect of a Native child,” says Kristy Alberty, Cherokee, spokeswoman for the National Indian Child Welfare Association.
As those who read this blog are aware, the removal of Indian Children was supposed to end with the ICWA of 1978 and sadly, it's still a crisis and unacceptable. Poverty is a powerful weapon and is still being used against Indian people.  Trace

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

ICWA law at center of adoption controversy

ICWA law at center of adoption controversy
fox23.com
OKLAHOMA - The Indian Child Welfare Act went into effect 34 years ago, and supporters of the family of Veronica, a girl who was in the process of being adopted by a South Carolina couple, say it was improperly applied to this case.

The horrific comments after this story are very telling about the actual understanding of the sovereignty of tribes and their members...Trace

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Adopters battle with Cherokee Father

Couple battles tribe over adoption


Columbia, South Carolina (WLTX) - A Lowcountry couple with a Midlands connection is working to get back the little girl they adopted two years ago, after a judge granted custody to the biological father under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
"I'll always remember her crying when we had to - we had to walk out of that office and leave her there," says Melanie Capobianco. Two years ago, she and her husband Matt first helped to welcome Veronica into the world.
According to their website, her birth mother selected the Charleston couple to adopt her and they remain close. They also say her birth father signed a document saying he wouldn't contest the adoption. But after a court battle, Veronica's birth father claimed custody under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. "Specifically, it says that tribes have to be notified when children of their members, or eligible members, are being placed outside the home. Tribes have to be given a chance to intervene," explains David Simmons with the National Indian Child Welfare Association.
He says their culture is an important aspect of the Native American community. "Their culture, nobody else can provide that for them. And they have a right to be able to experience that relationship with their tribe," says Simmons.
On New Year's Eve, Veronica's birth father took her with him to Oklahoma, where he lives. While Simmons is sympathetic to the Capobiancos' struggle, he's seen similar cases before. "Oftentimes, when we hear about cases like this, we find out that there hasn't, the person who was facilitating - sort of the expert in doing this work - wasn't following the Indian Child Welfare Act as closely as they should've been," he says.
The couple did get to talk to Veronica on the phone earlier this week. "She said, 'Hi mommy! Hi daddy!' She sounded really excited to hear us and she said, 'I love you, I love you,' numerous times," says Melanie. 
But they're still fighting to have more than just her voice back in their home.
Melanie is originally from Winnsboro. She and her husband's appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court is already underway, but the case probably won't be heard until this spring.
News19 did leave a message for Veronica's birth father's attorney, but has not yet heard back. Click here for the TV broadcast

My thoughts:
The slant in this story is the child is/was better off with the adoptive parents and the bio-dad is not enough Indian to matter - if you read the comments after this story.
The idea behind the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was to protect children. Adoption does not protect us if the courts place a child outside of their tribal family. The courts should respect a father's right to parent and have custody... in this case the mother had given consent for adoption of Veronica but not the father who is Cherokee.
If both parents consent to adoption, if that is the only option for a child, then other family needs to raise the child within the tribe...
Disregarding federal law and the sovereignty of Native American people is obvious in too many cases of adoption in the last 30 years since ICWA. South Carolina is among them.
Trace

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

NEWS and UPDATES from Trace


Ellowyn's Lakota doll
I thank everyone for reading this BLOG and for signing up to get it via email (on the right side bar).
Experts say you need to ASK your readers to "Like" your Facebook page - so please visit my book page:  https://www.facebook.com/trace.a.demeyer#!/Splitfeathers - and I ask you to please click LIKE.  I thank you for this.
"Like" helps with Google rankings and will help others find this blog, this history and me.
On average I hear from three new adoptees each week. That is good. That was and is my prayer. That is why I am a journalist who blogs about adoption news and being adopted. I will help anyone who contacts me and I will get them the help they need if I cannot do it myself.
I have been working all year on a brand new second edition of ONE SMALL SACRIFICE and it should be out in a few weeks. It's the same book with a few more chapters. It has two prefaces, four major chapters and an epilogue.  Also, there is a new WARNING to readers that this is NOT a chronology but written as I was learning and remembering my own childhood and doing the search for my family.  My book has Indian history born of pain and experience, history you won't read in newspapers or mentioned in North American classrooms.
One of the best comments I hear is I did a lot of research. Yes, indeed. Over five years and counting and I am still learning.
Book 2: SPLIT FEATHERS: TWO WORLDS is ready and we are looking for a publisher. This new anthology goes further and tells individual adoptee stories, in their own words. This book will change hearts and exposes more of our history! I will let you know when we do get it published.
The ultimate goal of this blog is to find new adoptees (Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects) and to have a group of adoptees testify before Congress to expose how we were adopted and erased from our tribal nations - deliberately.  Some of us were physically and sexually abused (YES) and in many states we are STILL denied access to adoption records so we cannot go home to our tribes and families.
A few days ago I made a new relative in South Dakota, Evelyn Red Lodge, also an adoptee and a journalist at Native Sun News. Evelyn is working to make these hearings happen, in the not-too-distant future. She helped NPR do their three-part investigation (posted on this blog in November) which made headlines across the globe. 
Adoptees like Evelyn and Sandy White Hawk at First Nations Orphans Association are rewriting history and helping others to heal with their activism. Here is a link to Evelyn's story on Indianz.com: http://64.38.12.138/News/2011/003731.asp
Evelyn is helping to organize a rally for residents in South Dakota to stop the adoptions of Indian children in her state. More happen each day, in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 32 states are in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act, according to recent NRP reports.
As I wrote on this blog, our goverments in North American made us orphans and sealed our records so we'd disappear completely. But they can't erase our blood or our memory.
If erasure was the intention of the Indian Adoption Projects - to separate families and ensure adoptees would lose contact with their tribal relatives - in many ways they succeeded.
Now, today, our major task is to expose this attempted ethnic cleansing and rejoin our families and our nations.
Until all adoption records are open, in particular the Indian Adoption Projects and Indian Programs, conducted secretly in many states, I will not rest.
And neither should you...

Trace A. DeMeyer

Read more about First Nations Orphans Association here: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fnoa/
Sandy White Hawk is writing her biography now.


I will be back after the holidays...Blessings to everyone...Happy New Year 2012...

click

Contact Trace

Name

Email *

Message *

NO MORE UPDATES

GO TO:  https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/  for updates and news. THIS BLOG cannot be updated...