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

(UPDATED 726/2025) issues with blogger are preventing this

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Baby Veronica and the fight to preserve Native American culture

Opinions By Ben Shelly, Published: July 5 


Ben Shelly is president of the Navajo Nation, which is headquartered in Window Rock, Ariz.

The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the fate of a young Cherokee girl has reignited debate about the role of the Indian Child Welfare Act in today’s society.
The law has faced critics since its passage in 1978. But understanding why it was implemented also helps explain why it remains necessary.

For hundreds of years, the official policies of the United States were to eradicate American Indians from their homelands. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny did not have room for the first peoples of this land. While the practice of genocide gave way to assimilation policies, the goal was still the same: to remove the Indian or Indian culture from these lands. As a result, Native Americans have been forcibly removed from their homelands and forbidden to speak their language or practice their culture. In the 1970s, a study by the Association of American Indian Affairs found, as many as 35 percent of Indian children were removed from their homelands through religious programs, boarding schools and adoption.
I was assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture through such practices. The cost to me of learning mainstream American values was the loss of my understanding of the Navajo belief system. I had to work very hard to reconnect to Navajo culture later in life.
When I was knee-high in the 1950s, I began my Bureau of Indian Affairs schooling in my home town of Thoreau, N.M. I entered a school system that drew many of its philosophies and practices from the 1870s, when boarding schools first became a tool of the federal government to “fix” the Indian problem.
Other programs were designed to help Indian children become acculturated, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Indian Placement Program, which began in 1947 and ended in 2000. This program took Native American children from their reservations and placed them with foster families. The children were supposed to be gone for only a year, but some still haven’t returned.
While it’s good for young people to learn about different cultures, it is just as important for youths to gain identity by learning about the culture they are born into. This is especially true when long-standing U.S. government policies have sought to eradicate that culture.
Teachers in my schools washed out our mouths with soap or openly punished us in other ways, sometimes physically, if we spoke our native language. I witnessed this until I graduated from high school in Snowflake, Ariz. As an Indian, I learned to be ashamed of a language and life that were designed to be my strength in times of greatest need. I never liked the taste of soap.
For decades, many of our young people were denied the right of cultural inheritance because of programs and adoptions eager to take American Indian children and assimilate them into the larger, dominant American society. Most of these efforts probably stemmed from people’s desire to help children. In reality, however, these actions resulted in confusion and mental trauma about identity, and many American Indians lost a basic sense of self. The tribes’ fundamental right to determine the best teachings for our children were denied.
This is why the Indian Child Welfare Act continues to play such an important role for American Indian tribes. Whether the children are Potawatomi, Seneca, Umatilla, Navajo or Cherokee, the law allows tribes to give our children the opportunity to experience the beauty of their culture and to ensure that we as a people survive.
I have been disturbed by the blood quantum discussion that has been part of the debate, sparked by the lawsuits about Baby Veronica, over whether a child is considered American Indian. Tribal membership is a sovereign and sacred right. A child determined to be a member of a sovereign nation is just that. Arguments of whether a child is “Indian enough” based on an outsider’s concept of what it is to be American Indian have no bearing.
American Indian people have long fought for our rights and practices to have a place in U.S. society. Our language, culture and traditions are as sacred as the air we breathe. Despite attempts to remove us in one form or another, we remain intact and culturally strong as ever. The chance to teach our children the ways of our ancestors is a sacred honor and duty.
The Navajo Nation has more than 320,000 tribal citizens who can call a 27,000-square-mile area home. In our home, our language flourishes, our culture remains intact and our ceremonies are performed. We live according to the beliefs and traditions bestowed upon us by our Holy People, our deities.
It’s a beautiful way of living.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

South Dakota tribes to reinvent foster care

I have been in touch with Lakota officials to offer information about other tribe's foster care systems - and what is working in Indian Country. This conference is great news. We need to help families stay together and if not, use kinship care for all our Native children... Trace

 

As fears mount over state misconduct, tribes focus on creating their own foster care systems

Daniel Simmons-Ritchie (RAPID CITY JOURNAL)
Following mounting anger over charges that the state has routinely and illegally placed Native American children with non-native foster parents, South Dakota tribes gathered Monday in Rapid City to discuss how they could form their own tribal-run foster care systems.
The discussion, hosted by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe at the Rushmore Plaza, marked the first day of the three-day Oceti Sakowin Conference. The meeting is the third in a series of quarterly summits between the state’s nine Lakota tribes to discuss common concerns.
While the afternoon discussion touched upon preservation of sacred sites and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, the morning was dominated by debate over alleged abuses by the state of South Dakota under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Following a report by National Public Radio in 2011, concern has been building that the Department of Social Services has repeatedly violated ICWA, a law enacted in 1978 to ensure the preservation of Native American culture by ensuring that native children taken by social workers are placed in Native American foster homes. The NPR report found that 90 percent of native children in South Dakota are placed in non-native homes.
Since a conference held by the tribes in Rapid City in May, attended by Kevin Washburn, the U.S. Interior Department‘s assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, the Lakota have focused increasingly on steps to wrestle away federal funding from South Dakota and create native-run foster care systems.
The $56 million that’s going to the state of South Dakota should be coming to us so we can keep our families together,” Chase Iron Eyes, a private attorney and member of the Standing Rock Sioux, told attendees. “That’s the bottom line.

Speaking during a recess, Dan Sheehan, chief counsel for the Lakota People’s Law Project, a non-profit that has provided expertise to the Lakota since 2006 about ICWA violations, said that it is looking increasingly likely that the tribes could attain that federal funding.
Sheehan, an attorney who was involved in cases surrounding the Iran-Contra scandals in the 1980s and the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, said that his group had recently met with officials in the U.S. Department of the Interior that favored creating an application process to give funds directly to Lakota tribes.
“The money will be taken away from the state and given directly to the tribes,” Sheehan said, adding that he was reasonably confident that could happen within the next two years.
Monday’s discussion also focused on potential models for native-run foster care systems. On the Pine Ridge Reservation, the Oglala Sioux have a tribal-run foster care system that is partially funded by the state of South Dakota.
The administering agency, called Lakota Oyate Wakanyeja Owicakiyapi (LOWO), only handles cases on the reservation and still must follow South Dakota rules that have been criticized by Native American advocates. Still, with a focus on traditional Lakota culture like purification ceremonies, reformers see it as a path to repair a system that has failed natives.
That doesn’t mean starting their own systems will be simple for tribes. Emily Iron Cloud, executive director of LOWO, said that the planning work alone was hugely time consuming.
“You need to have the community’s voice, their vision for what kind of agency they want to see, and there’s a lot of work that needs to happen,” she said.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Update on Baby Girl proceedings #BABY VERONICA

http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/update-on-baby-girl-proceedings/


Baby Veronica’s biological father, stepmother and paternal grandparents have filed court papers in Oklahoma to adopt the 3-year-old girl, a move that dissenting U.S. Supreme Court justices warned could happen and will likely complicate the custody dispute....
The toddler’s mother found the Capobiancos through an adoption agency and, when the girl was born in September 2009, gave custody to them.

Lori Alvino McGill, the Washington attorney for Veronica’s biological mother, said her client, Christinna Maldonado, has not agreed to allow the adoption by anyone other than the Capobiancos and will fight the termination of her parental rights if the couple’s adoption doesn’t go through.

“We believe these frivolous filings in other jurisdictions are designed to further delay the proceedings,” McGill said, “in the hope that it will make it harder for South Carolina to finalize the (Capobiancos’) adoption.”

A Charleston attorney for Veronica’s father said Dusten Brown simply wants to continue raising his daughter.

Monday, July 8, 2013

GUEST POST: Levi EagleFeather Sr.

         Living life for me during my early years was much like walking through a very colorfull yet very surreal collage of everyone else’s bad or leftover dreams. Nothing made any sense!
 
        Hello, my name is Levi William EagleFeather Sr. I am a Lakota by heritage. Sicangu Lakota by birth. I am an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux tribe of Rosebud South Dakota. I was adopted at the age of four but haven’t been since I changed my mind about it at the age of fifteen and got the hell away from the whole sordid mess. That was quite awhile ago. I’m 55 now.
 
         It wasn’t until the first summer I sundanced that those dreams faded and reality became mine. Clarity, like cool clear water to a thirsty parched throat or shade to a sun drenched overheated mind, soothed my weary war torn senses and  underfed spirit. At long last I had found sanctuary and once again re-entered the land of the human being or as we say in Lakota, Ikce Wicasa (common man). 

         Somewhere in Scott Momaday’s writing he wrote that telling a story takes words to describe words. Life is certainly that way.  Whether it’s yours or mine it’s story.  Being such it requires or demands words many words to bring forth a full sense of our reality. Words which describe the full spectrum of thought, emotion and feeling that make-up the scattered and fragmented and sometimes incomprehensible reality of our lives as American Indians. Especially in the aftermath of the wars and ongoing efforts of genocide against our people. Adoption is but one of those many efforts and the resulting ism’s are but its results. Results that force us into, well let’s just say that chameleons have nothing on us!  Nevertheless, for sanity’s sake for peace of mind these results are ours to overcome.

         The words of our overcoming, these words, my words, your words, our words describe just a portion of life's meaning, but it’s our life and it‘s important.  A living reality of experience, thought, feeling and emotion. No two experiences ever exactly alike. No two thoughts, feelings or emotions ever exactly the same, at the same time, or about the same thing. Always ongoing ever-changing, growing, metamorphisizing neither negative or positive necessarily, but always changing describing the ever shifting ever adapting overcoming that is life and living. That part of life and living that in its many forms and shapes is you and me, the American Indian.

         In looking back, when all is said and done life has been pretty full for me, as it should be. I am, for the most part most of the time, a happy man and enjoy living come what may. Although, it hasn’t always been this way. Time and distance have allowed my spirit the space needed to recover somewhat so the light of day no longer sears the consciousness of my soul. I think, an experience of surviving hell and high water and coming out on the other side does that to a person. Living through it can and often does make us creatures of a darker understanding of life and living. Sometimes morphing us into a breed of walking dead, soul dead. Adoption can be like that, hell and high water, for some. It was for me and my sibs.

         I realize throughout it all some don’t do so well. Adapt and overcome I mean. Seems that some get burned pretty bad and take on lots of water and experience lots of hurting for many years after. I think, myself, I just became hell. Unfortunately, for those associated with me or those who experienced me during my early days will attest that that was the reality of being too close or trying getting to know me. There was much scorched earth left in the wake of my struggling. Struggling to survive those early years on my own alone.

         Understanding the reality of all of this. Who, what and why I was and am has taken many years to gather and digest.
One thing good about us though is that we are just another form of nature. Being such, raw nature, we are energy. Raw energy and we seek to flow. In flowing we seek our own level much  like water running to the sea. Sometimes we rage sometimes we flood cutting our way through the rock and the barriers that obstruct our knowing and our understanding. Our journey our destiny if you will becomes cluttered with the debris of our raging and flooding. Disrupted journey’s disrupted destiny’s on the way to experience the ebb and flow of natural being.
This is the first in a series. Words, just words strung together to convey meaning and understanding to a reality that wasn’t supposed to exist, but does. It’s my story.
 
Levi lives in Germany and will be contributing to this blog.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Drama over Baby Veronica goes on (UPDATED)

 

UPDATE Friday 5:51 pm:  Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., on Friday afternoon ordered that the Court’s ruling in the “Baby Veronica” case will go into effect a week from now.  That will return the case to the South Carolina Supreme Court to decide with which family the baby will live.

—————-
The emotional tug-of-war over the future of “Baby Veronica” has stirred a new legal skirmish in the Supreme Court, following the Justices’ ruling Tuesday raising the prospect that the girl may be shifted from her father back to a South Carolina couple who had raised her for a time but then had to yield to the father.  The application, 13A7, came in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (decided in docket 12-399).
The would-be adoptive parents on Wednesday filed a formal request for the Court to put its decision into effect “forthwith” — that is, without waiting the usual twenty-five days — so that the next phase in the custody struggle could begin promptly.  On Thursday, the baby’s birth father, a member of the Cherokee Indian tribe, said he was opposed to moving so swiftly, but promised to try to work out a somewhat earlier timetable than would normally unfold.

The case called for the Supreme Court to sort out the perhaps conflicting strands of state law on child adoption and a 1978 federal law on the rights of Indian parents and families.   In the end, the Court decided by a five-to-four vote that the federal law did not bar the termination of the Indian father’s parental rights, but it left it to the South Carolina Supreme Court to sort out what to do next.
The child, known in the media by the name “Baby Veronica” but identified in the adoption case as only “Baby Girl,” will be four years old in September.  At birth, her mother gave up the child, and the Indian father did not object.  She soon joined the family of a non-Indian couple, Matt and Madeline Capobianco, who live near Charleston.  When they notified the father, Dusten Brown, who lived in Oklahoma, he then sought custody of the child, claiming protection for his relationship under the federal law.
The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled, with reluctance, for the father, and the child returned with him to his Oklahoma home, where she remains.
In asking the Supreme Court to speed up the issuance of its ruling, which seems strongly to favor their claim, the South Carolina couple said that even a month was important in a child’s life, so the Court should act swiftly.  They said they had not spoken with or seen the little girl “in nearly 18 months,” after having to give her up in December 2011.   They interpreted the Supreme Court ruling as coming close to supporting their claim.
The birth father, however, disputed their interpretation of the Court’s decision, and said that the ruling had left open the possibility that the girl’s paternal grandparents or other members of the Cherokee Nation might seek to adopt the child.   He said the tribe joined him in opposing immediate release of the ruling’s formal mandate.   He and his lawyers need time, he said, to decide their next step, but vowed that, after doing so, they would consult with the South Carolina couple to try to work out an earlier date to put the decision into effect.
There is no timetable for the Court to act on this new dispute, but it is expected to do so promptly.

Posted in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, Merits Cases
Lyle Denniston, Drama over Baby Veronica goes on (UPDATED), SCOTUSblog (Jun. 27, 2013, 7:20 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/drama-over-baby-veronica-goes-on/

Baby Veronica Case updates

Adoptive Couple Seeks Immediate SCT Mandate in Baby Veronica Case


by Matthew L.M. Fletcher (Turtle Talk)
SCOTUS blog has coverage here.
Adoptive Couple's application is here.
Dusten Brown's opposition is here.

Friday, June 28, 2013

I am thinking: #BABY VERONICA BIRTHRIGHTS

By Trace A. DeMeyer

OK, bear with me...

I am thinking:  The Supreme Court ruling has me dumbfounded. I am not a lawyer but the Baby Veronica case is now headed back to the South Carolina courts who already ruled in favor of Dusten Brown, the natural father of baby Veronica. It's a legal technicality so the case is not over yet Anderson Cooper on CNN had an exclusive with the adoptive parents (on June 25th) who implied they won and can have custody? And Anderson was gushing at their angst and was so sorry they were suffering?

Really? What about the primal pain of abandonment and adoption on Veronica's emotions and spirit? Has anyone on TV done any research on birth psychology?  It's not obvious now since Veronica is still too young to show the signs of trauma, abandonment, confusion and reactive attachment disorder but they will come later -- because she's been adopted. (The birthmother did this to Veronica and is not off the hook by a long shot -- Veronica will grow up and learn the truth eventually.)

I am thinking: What kind of parent would want to pull a child from her natural father now, after one year? Isn't this selfish and not in the best interest of Veronica? What kind of trauma and confusion will this upheaval create for Veronica?

I am thinking: The fact that some of the Supreme Court Justices adopted children: THEY HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE AN ADOPTEE. Like many adoptive parents, they prefer to think of every adoptee as grateful and humbled to be adopted. (These Justices should be aware of the effects of adoption, right? If they were adopted and denied their identity, this case might be different.)

I am thinking: Veronica will lose her identity as an American Indian being raised in South Carolina with non-Native parents - which is what the federal Indian Child Welfare Act was intended to stop. Being a Cherokee or a member of any sovereign tribe is a birthright for Veronica.

I am thinking: What do these adoptive parents know about the Cherokee tribe, their culture or traditions or language? If they do win custody, do they plan to offer Dusten and other tribal relatives contact with Veronica?

I am thinking it's a birthright my adoption ended, with sealed adoption records and Minnesota being a closed records state and my adoptive parents not even aware of my ancestry. (I still do not have a copy of my original birth certificate from Minnesota with my name Laura Jean Thrall-Bland.) (My baby photo below)

I am thinking: How does adoption serve this child when her own father wants to be her parent?
Is it because the adoptive parents paid their money and had custody of Veronica since she was born - even when this child had federal protections as a member of a tribal nation?

I am thinking: Children are only children a short time. Veronica is reported to be strong-willed, even as a little girl. What will she have to say about this in a few years? Will her adoptive parents expect her to be grateful and accept and understand how they chose her -- yet they took her away from a father who wanted her (even though it was very messy with her natural mother abandoning her in the beginning of her life?)

I am thinking: After watching Anderson Cooper interview Veronica's adoptive parents, they still do not get it: you do not OWN us.  All that matters is the well-being of the child.  What does Veronica need to grow up to be a healthy and happy adult and a member of the sovereign Cherokee Nation?

I am thinking: This lawsuit is going to hurt everyone.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Public Radio Spots on #Baby Veronica Case

Posted on by (Turtle Talk)


babyveronicaMinnesota (with Colette Routel)
and New Mexico (with Fletcher)
NPR (with Marcia Zug and Mary Jo Hunter)

What does this mean for the Future of Native America and the ICWA? 

 http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19135687-supreme-court-rules-for-couple-over-baby-girls-adoption?lite&gt1=43001

MORE:

Baby Girl Additional Thoughts — Implications for State Indian Child Welfare Laws

by ilpc

An important question we've been asked repeatedly -- how does Adoptive Couple affect state laws codifying and supplementing the Indian Child Welfare Act?
State ICWA laws remain intact. This was not a decision on the constitutionality of ICWA, but rather an interpretation of ICWA's wording. This Supreme Court defers to state law when possible. While state courts may interpret the language the same way, if it's the same language (which it is in Michigan, for example), it's not bound to. For example, the legislative history of a state law passed in 2012 is very different than that of the federal law passed in 1978. There may be different policy goals, or other parts of the statute are different enough to indicate a broader, and higher, standard. In addition, state statutes of general applicability, such as those addressing the rights of biological fathers to their children still apply. In some ways this ends up like the marriage equality decisions--where a person lives may determine their rights.
There is going to be more pressure on tribes to have an adoptive placement available for a child earlier. This decision may give state DHS officials the incorrect belief that they do not have to find a proper placement for the child under the law, but that rather a family must make some sort of "formal" application. What is a formal application will also likely be determined by state law, given the Court gave no indication what it meant by that in the opinion. The Court seemed to be making a distinction between a tribal official testifying that there are adoptive families available and an adoptive family being vetting through (in this case) a state court.
We are also curious to find out how will this apply in conjunction with the state removing children at birth from mothers for various reasons--previous terminations, testing positive. How long must a parent have a child for it to be considered "continued" custody? When does legal custody attach? Again, this is likely determined through state law.
 

Native America Calling Show #BABY VERONICA

Thursday, June 27, 2013 – Supreme Court Ruling on Baby Veronica Case The US Supreme Court issued a decision on Tuesday in the case of Adoptive 
Couple v. Baby Girl. In the 5 to 4 decision, the justices struck down a lower court
ruling and found that Baby Veronica did not have to be returned to her father, who
is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. What are the potential long term effects of
 this case in Native America? What does the ruling mean for the Indian Child Welfare
Act
(ICWA), which regulates adoptions of Native children outside of their tribe. What
does this case mean to you?
Guests include: Terry Cross (Seneca), Executive Director
of NICWA; Chrissi Nimmo (Cherokee) Assistant Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation;
and the Lakota People's Law Project.

Listen at 1 pm EST: http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Collection of Reactions on Baby Girl Case

by Kate Fort      (Turtle Talk)             

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Baby Veronica in Oklahoma (ICT PHOTO)

RENO, Nev., June 25, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

-- In the June 25th 5-4 decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl the United States Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), but reversed and remanded this case back to the South Carolina courts on a technicality. The narrow decision focused on the standard to determine whether this particular father's parental rights could be terminated.

Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians delivered the following statement from the organization's Mid Year Conference in Reno, Nevada:
"Today's decision sends a clear message that there is no question of ICWA's role as the most important law to protect Native children and families. The decision also affirms Congressional authority to protect Indian Children. While we are pleased the court has upheld ICWA, we're very disappointed for Dusten, Veronica, and the Brown family that the court has ruled to send the case back to the South Carolina courts on a technicality. However, the courts in South Carolina have previously affirmed that Dusten Brown is Veronica's father and that he is a fit parent. We are confident that his parental rights will be upheld, and that Veronica will stay with her family.
We remain committed to Native families and we will continue to support Dusten Brown's fight for his rights as a father and for Veronica to remain with her loving father, grandparents, and community. Dusten loves his daughter and has never given up in this process, and neither will we."
 
Background
In mid-April of 2013, the Supreme Court Justices considered an appeal by the South Carolina couple and their lawyers to the South Carolina Supreme Court decision which held the following;
   1. that it was in Veronica's best interests to be placed with her father; 
 
   2. that ICWA applied and was not unconstitutional; 
 
   3. the "Existing Indian Family" doctrine was inapplicable as an exception to 
      the application of the ICWA in this case; 
 
   4. that the father did not voluntarily consent to the termination of his 
      parental rights or the adoption; 
 
   5. the Appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 
      Father's parental rights should be terminated or that granting custody of 
      Baby Girl to Father would likely result in serious emotional or physical 
      damage to Baby Girl. 
In advance of the oral arguments, support for the position to uphold the lower court rulings and the protections of ICWA was characterized as historic. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and 19 states and state attorneys general were joined by a large array of groups who submitted 24 separate briefs in all. Not one state submitted briefs in support of Adoptive Couple.
The overwhelming support included 17 former and current members of Congress; Casey Family Programs, the Children's Defense Fund, and 16 other child welfare organizations; the American Civil Liberties Union; broad coalitions of psychology associations, child advocates, and legal experts; adult Native American adoptees; and tribal amicus briefs which include 333 American Indian tribes.
Two national tribal amicus briefs were submitted. The first, focused on the legislative history and importance of ICWA, was submitted by the Association on American Indian Affairs, NCAI, and the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), who were joined by 30 Indian tribes and five Indian organizations. A second national tribal amicus brief addresses the constitutional issues raised by the petitioners and also includes 24 tribal nations and organizations. The members of the Tribal Supreme Court Project--Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and NCAI--in partnership with NICWA, joined together to organize the briefs in support of the father.
About The National Congress of American Indians:
Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments and communities, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights. For more information visit www.ncai.org
SOURCE National Congress of American Indians
/Web site: http://www.ncai.org

Monday, June 24, 2013

ARENA: what came after the Indian Adoption Projects

Source: U.S. Children's Bureau, Child-Welfare Exhibits:  Types and Preparation, Miscellaneous Series, No. 4, Bureau Publication No. 14 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1915).
Beginning in 1916, the U.S. Children's Bureau brought its baby-week campaign to thousands of cities, towns, and rural communities across the United States. The photograph above was taken during a baby-week celebration on an Indian reservation.
 

1958

Child Welfare League of America published Standards of Adoption Service (revised in 1968, 1973, 1978, 1988, 2000); Indian Adoption Project began.
 
The Adoption Resource Exchange of North America (ARENA), founded in 1966, was the immediate successor to the Indian Adoption Project. ARENA was the first national adoption resource exchange devoted to finding homes for hard-to-place children. It continued the practice of placing Native American children with white adoptive parents for a number of years in the early 1970s. (It's estimated some 20,000 children were removed from their First Nations families and sent to non-Native parents in the US.)
 
1966The National Adoption Resource Exchange, later renamed the Adoption Resource Exchange of North America (ARENA), was established as an outgrowth of the Indian Adoption Project.
 
Quote: ARNOLD LYSLO, DIRECTOR, INDIAN ADOPTION PROJECT 12/1962
Indian children have certain rights which are theirs by birthright. That is, they have rights of tribal enrollment if they meet the requirements for enrollment set up by the tribe. As tribal members they have the right to share in all the assets of the tribe which are distributed on a per capita basis. The actual as well as anticipated benefits of an Indian child adopted through our Project are furnished by the Secretary of Interior. The Secretary of Interior, through the superintendent of the Indian agency where the child is enrolled, has the right to approve or disapprove of any plan made for the distribution of funds belonging to an Indian child.
 
[Even though Lyslo said we have rights, we are still taken from our tribes and placed in non-Indian families - which is part and parcel of a genocide program. And maybe those non-Indian parents adopted us for the money we could earn as tribal members...Poverty was often cited as the reason for removal - so who caused the poverty?? - we know the answer... Trace]
 
 
It’s estimated that 18,000-20,000 First Nation, Inuit and Metis children were adopted or fostered to non-native homes from the 1960′s to the early 1980s. This came to be known as the 60′s scoop. Coleen Rajotte reports from Winnipeg about a Cree man returning home to Manitoba after 39 years away, and a young boy who benefited from new strategies in adoption to ensure that Aboriginal kids stay within their communities.

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/8thfire/2012/01/hidden-colonial-legacy-the-60s-scoop.html

 

1978

Indian Child Welfare Act passed by Congress...

Friday, June 21, 2013

First Nations Poverty epidemic

Aboriginal peoples are a growing percentage of Canada's population, but the poverty rate for children is being called 'staggering.' (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

New Report, Half of First Nations Children Live in Poverty

by Victoria Sweet
Half of status First Nations children in Canada live in poverty, a troubling figure that jumps to nearly two-thirds in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, says a newly released report.
"The poverty rate is staggering. A 50 per-cent poverty rate is unlike any other poverty rate for any other disadvantaged group in the country, by a long shot the worst," said David Macdonald, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and co-author of the report.
The study released late Tuesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Save the Children Canada found that the poverty rate of status First Nations children living on reserves was triple that of non-indigenous children.
Article here.
Poverty rates among status First Nations children are consistently higher across the country.
Co-author Daniel Wilson cautions that for many of them, "the depth of the poverty … is actually greater than the numbers themselves tell you."
"Imagine any typical First Nations child living on a reserve," said Wilson, a former diplomat and policy consultant on indigenous issues. "They're waking up in an overcrowded home that may have asbestos, probably has mould, is likely in need of major repair, that does not have drinking water and they have no school to go to."

About 426,000 indigenous children live in Canada, with most residing in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. The indigenous population is one of the fastest growing in Canada. 


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Remembering the Forgotten Child: New Scholarship on the “American Indian Child Welfare Crisis of the 1960s and 1970s”

New Scholarship on the “American Indian Child Welfare Crisis of the 1960s and 1970s”

by Matthew L.M. Fletcher (Turtle Talk)
Margaret D. Jacobs has published "Remembering the 'Forgotten Child': The American Indian Child Welfare Crisis of the 1960s and 1970s" in the American Indian Quarterly. 
Here is an excerpt:
On Christmas Day 1975, Marcia Marie Summers was born to Charlene Summers, a member and resident of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation in North Dakota. A few months later, a white couple from Indiana approached the young mother and offered to care for her infant while Summers attended school. (Just two months before, the couple had filed an adoption petition in the Standing Rock Tribal Court for another Indian child, but the court had denied their request.) Assuming she was making a temporary arrangement, Summers agreed and signed a document giving the Indiana couple power of attorney over Marcia Marie in parent-child-related actions. Immediately, the couple departed with the baby from the reservation and returned to Indiana. Summers realized that the couple intended to permanently adopt her daughter, so she asked the Standing Rock Tribal Court to intervene. When the couple ignored the tribal court's order to return the child to her mother, Summers and tribal authorities requested the help of the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA). Their attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus on Summers's behalf in the Washington County, Indiana, Circuit Court, and the judge ordered Marcia Marie returned to her mother, noting the tribe's exclusive jurisdiction in the case.
Like Summers, in the 1960s and 1970s, thousands of other American Indian parents, grandparents, and caretakers suffered the removal of their children and their placement in non-Indian foster or adoptive homes. Unlike Summers, however, many Indian families struggled for years to regain their children, and some were never able to effect their return. By the late 1960s, many Indian tribes had become deeply troubled by this practice. In 1968, having endured an inordinate number of such cases, the Devils Lake (now Spirit Lake) Sioux Tribe of North Dakota requested that the AAIA conduct an investigation into the practice. The AAIA found that of 1,100 Devils Lake Sioux Indians under twenty-one years of age living on the Fort Totten reservation, 275, or 25 percent, had been separated from their families. Suspecting that this practice devastated other Indian communities as well, the AAIA engaged in a painstaking process to amass similar data from state social services agencies and private placement agencies across the nation. They discovered that in most states with large American Indian populations, 25 to 35 percent of Indian children had been separated from their families and placed in foster or adoptive homes or in institutions at a per capita rate far higher than that of non-Indian children.
How did it come to pass that the fostering and adoption of Indian children outside their families and communities had reached these crisis proportions by the late 1960s? State welfare authorities and Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA) officials alleged a dramatic rise in unmarried Indian mothers with unwanted children and claimed that many Indian individuals and families lacked the resources and skills to properly care for their own children. Claiming to be concerned with the best interests of the Indian child, the BIA promoted the increased fostering and adoption of Indian children in non-Indian families. Indian families and their advocates charged instead that many social workers were using ethnocentric and middle-class criteria to unnecessarily remove Indian children from their families and communities. Through creating their own child welfare organizations and legal codes, as well as working for the Indian Child Welfare Act ( ICWA), Indian activists and their allies sought to bring Indian child welfare under the control of Indian nations.

I will post more about ARENA soon which took First Nations children from Canada - 20,000 children were placed here in the US and many don't know they are living in the US illegally - yes, it's true... Trace 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Part 4 and 5: The Fight for Baby Veronica

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/12/fight-baby-veronica-part-4-149873
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/17/fight-baby-veronica-part-5-149932

Suzette Brewer at Indian Country Today
who has reported on this story really deserves an award, a Pulitzer for her journalism!
 
From Trace:
One thing that bothered me about this from the very beginning is how Veronica's first mother accepted $10,000 for adopting out Veronica. That is a big incentive for a mother of two who is relinquishing, and perhaps why Dusten was left out of the adoption decision she made. That's what adoption agencies do - keep the young couple separate and not talking. $10K is a lot of incentive and Dusten was the ex-boyfriend she should avoid. (Perhaps why she misspelled his name, too, when she knew he is an enrolled tribal member and how the Indian Child Welfare Act is federal law.)
 
The shady adoption industry is so cunning these days:
Baby Dads don't really have rights - just keep them away.
Cash for babies is a perk, an incentive, a bonus.
Accept that adoptive parents are much more deserving and will provide a better life for your baby.
 
Adoption propaganda in America is never about the baby. It's about the needs of adopters - they get what they need and pay big money for it. That's their business model: find a need and fill it.
 
When you think about this case: the only ones who won't feel any pain and loss are the social workers/agency workers/adoption lawyers who move on immediately to their next case. 
 
In a corrupt industry, all you have to do is follow the money.
 

Friday, June 14, 2013

What if everything you thought about adoption was wrong?


http://www.amazon.com/The-Child-Catchers-Trafficking-ebook/dp/B00BKRW582
The Evangelical Christian adoption movement: The orphan crisis that wasn't

Evangelical Christians are adopting children in large numbers - but are they doing more harm than good?

"Joyce's book is a powerful call to action, even for those of us who thought we knew something about the ethical issues posed by the adoption industry. But she is pushing back against an evangelical mega-church culture where leaders have convinced their followers that there is no greater crisis today than the plight of orphans, and that it is a Christian duty to rescue these poor children.
There are many ways to help children and family in need, and the fact that the Evangelical churches want to be involved in social justice causes is laudable. But to actually help, they need to listen to the voices of adopted children and the families who have placed them for adoption...."

Read this excellent review of the CHILD CATCHERS:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013516308692198.html?utm_campaign=Listly&utm_medium=list&utm_source=lastly

and check this out too: http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/the-child-catchers/

NPR interview with Kathryn Joyce:
Interview: Kathryn Joyce, Author Of ‘The Child Catchers’ : NPR on Huffduffer

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Bringing our children home


visit us on Facebook

ICWA Educational Resource Video – “Bringing our Children Home: An Introduction to the Indian Child Welfare Act”

by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
The video trailer referenced is the culmination of the ongoing collaboration between the Mississippi Courts, Child Welfare Agency, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and various National Resource Centers which specifically focus their expertise on educating non tribal entities on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and other issues related to Native American values. The video trailer was developed by the Mississippi Administrative Office of Courts/Court Improvement Program in consultation with the National Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues and the National Resource Center for Tribes as an ICWA educational resource for judges, courts, child welfare, and judicial educators. The full length video will be available later this year. The video is being produced by Mad Genius, Inc., Ridgeland, Mississippi.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Oranges and Sunshine

my other blog

                 

available on amazon
available on amazon
By Trace A. DeMeyer
I was slow to rent this movie but finally did a month or so ago (I had been warned it was that good and it was) - it's another example of government's programs to distribute children to religious groups or to adoptive parents who are abusive or unknowing about such a despicable program.  This movie hurts and broke me up since it's what I research and write about in my two books about American Indian Adoptees. These children had parents and were not orphans and yet some spent their lives in orphanages anyway. The abuse, especially of the men in this movie and book, will give you nightmares.
I thought I'd share one review from Amazon. It is a very good movie but a warning to those who have not watched it yet -- it has triggers for adoptees like me... Trace/Lara
The subject matter of "Oranges and Sunshine" is almost too disturbing to be believed. And yet, remarkably, it is the true recounting of one of the largest scandals of the last few decades. In 1986, a British social worker named Margaret Humphreys started to piece together an amazing and harrowing story that involved the mass deportation of children from the United Kingdom to Australia. What she discovered was simply stunning. The scandal involved political corruption and cover-up, religious impropriety, human rights violations, slave labor, systematic abuse and a government program that divided hundreds of families and disappeared countless minor children. This is such a grand and epic tale, it's hard to imagine that a film discussing these atrocities wouldn't be aggressively in-your-face. But the beauty of "Oranges and Sunshine" is that it takes a quieter approach and as things start to unfold, the dramatic weight of the situation really sneaks up on you and bowls you over!
A restrained Emily Watson plays Humphreys, a woman who didn't ask to be thrust into a worldwide spotlight. In the beginning of the film, she is approached by a woman for help finding her parents. This is when she firsts hears about children being shipped to Australia. Initially reticent and disbelieving, she soon hears a corroboration of this tale. She starts to dig deeper and push further, working between the U.K. and Australia to start repairing families. It consumes her life and livelihood, but she is pushed by a sense of justice. As word gets out, she is a savior to many but an embarrassment to others. And as the unfolding allegations put many important figures in an unfavorable light, she is soon discredited by many and attacked (both emotionally and physically). But as the investigation perseveres, there is soon no use denying the truth.
Watson is so reserved to begin with, it is quite powerful to see the strain start to shatter her existence. It's a great performance in that it is completely underplayed and, therefore, all the more believable. Directed by Jim Loach (son of award winner Ken Loach), the film also boasts impressive support by David Wenham and Hugo Weaving. Both Weaving and Watson picked up actor accolades from Australian Film Critics Circle. As I watched the movie unravel fairly simply, I was sure I was going to give it four stars as a solid exploration of an unfathomable event. But then the magnitude and emotion really hit me in the concluding scenes and I realized just how well constructed the film actually was. With a minimum of histrionics, sentimentality, or moralizing, the screenplay and the actors really gets under your skin. And, in the end, I was deeply affected by "Oranges and Sunshine" because it didn't go for all the big expected moments. Understatement done extremely well!
 
eagoodlife comment: I’m so glad you’ve viewed and reviewed this film of a true story. I knew Margaret a little at the time she began this journey and the story as it unfolded. The support she had from her bosses was the best and a credit to those who are so often criticised by the public. Margaret is in real life much more dynamic and engaging than portrayed. The tragic stories of those abused has been played down for the film. Their brutal and horrific abuse by the Christian Brothers was too horrible to be shown or revealed in this movie. However it is good that it was shown in part so that the public know what was done and is still being done in this culture of abuse It was an amazing first film, a long time in the making and deserves all the accolades it gets. .

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Adoption Propaganda: Silenced Adoptees


What is disturbing to me is the amount of money spent on ads promoting adoption - in 2013 - right now. I had planned to use google adwords (or ad choices) on this blog (but I didn't)... WHY?
Every single ad that popped up was Adoption Agencies or Newborn Wanted or Couple wants to buy, etc....
Have you noticed this on boards and websites where the word adoption is used???
I have said this before but the ones who need to be advertising or promoting their views BIG TIME are adoptees who want to share their truth about what it's like being adopted...but alas, we are not a billion dollar business like the adoption industry.
The way it is when adoption stories run on websites, every comment is in praise of the adopter, like somehow they are heroes and saved someone. Zilch about the adoptee as a human being or their trauma or loss.
The story that ran on Radio Lab about Baby Veronica was not balanced - there was not one adoptee who made a statement and hey, I did give them an interview for the story.
Silenced? Maybe.

Does this bug you?
Please comment... Trace
 

click

Contact Trace

Name

Email *

Message *

NO MORE UPDATES

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