ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act

Question: Indian Child Welfare Act...? If a child is a member of a Tribe, can they be adopted by Non-native relatives? I know the purpose of ICWA rules are to keep the child(ren) in the Native American Tribes, but what if the only family that wants to adopt them are Non-native relatives? It seems that it would be in the child's best interest to be with relatives instead of NA strangers.

Answer: In this case, growing up in one's culture is almost as important as blood relatives. The reason many First Nation People cannot parent their own children is due to years of attempted genocide (under the guise is assimilation) such as residential schools, sixties scoop etc. (not to mention the entire taking of our land and bringing many diseases) So in these cases the culture has been lost. Being part of the culture, I mean really truly part of the culture is the best way for that to happen. The exception is that their are NO native relatives who can take on the child, and they choose a Non-Aboriginal home that has cultural competence to raise the child within the culture. ETA: For those thumbing down, please also note that in our culture, it IS community raising children, and it cannot be broken down as simple as blood or not blood. Read a history book, it is the same in all countries where the Europeans attempted to wipe out entire Indigenous Nations in the guise of assimilation. Years of historical impact play equal amounts to "blood" at times.

Question: ICWA vs keeping siblings together (adoption)? I've heard about this situation and I'm curious as to the opinions of people on this forum. For the record, I don't personally know anyone involved. I am a disinterested third party, so I am not making an "argument" one way or the other. There was a sibling group of four that had been adopted through the foster care system by a Caucasian couple. Parental rights were recently terminated for a fifth sibling (a toddler). The family that adopted the older four is very interested in adopting the youngest, to keep the family together. However, the youngest child is bi-racial (Native American) which brings up ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act) into the picture. The other four children are African American so ICWA is not involved with these children at all. The biological family on both sides has already been ruled out as a possible adoptive home. So, should this youngest child be placed with her siblings in the adoptive home with the Caucasian couple or should the youngest child be placed in an adoptive home with a Native American family? Which is in the best interests of the child, in this case? ICWA (the Indian Child Welfare Act) was put into place in the 1970s to protect the loss of Native American cultures. This was in response to the atrocities committed in earlier years: forced loss of language, forbidden to practice customs, etc. Anyway, the law is such that unless the tribal government rules otherwise, any child of Native American descent that is adopted should be placed with a Native American family over any other race. This covers foster adoptions, private adoptions, agency adoptions, etc.

Answer: Well...ICWA isn't as simple as the father being Native American. First off, ICWA only applies to federally recognized tribes (there are quite a few that are unrecognized) and then what the ICWA statue means in practical application is that the tribe is noticed that the child may have Native American heritage. A form listing all known relatives who might be tribal members is sent to the tribal office to see if the child qualifies for membership in the tribe. Many tribes are not accepting new members and most tribes have qualifications about how much Indian heritage a child must have to qualify (such as 1/8th degree of heritage). If the father is not a registered tribal member, then with many tribes the child will not qualify for membership. Unless the child is given membership in a federally recognized tribe then the ICWA rules do not apply. If the child is found to fall under the ICWA rules, that doesn't necessarily mean the child would not be placed with the siblings. What ICWA means is that the tribe has the right to take jurisdiction of the child if they choose. In almost 9 years as a CPS worker in California (where we have a large Native American population) I've only seen two cases where the tribe actually took jurisdiction and both of those cases involved removal of a child from tribal members who lived on a reservation. Usually a tribe, if it wants to be involved, will assign a tribal social worker to work conjointly with the CPS social worker. So technically, if the child is found to come under the ICWA rulings and if the tribe takes jurisdiction then yes, the child could be placed in an Indian home and not with the siblings...but that is pretty rare. The goal is ICWA was to stop the destruction of Native American cultures and it comes from the history of Indian children being removed from reservations and adopted out, thus losing their culture and language. In the situation you described, ICWA would most likely only apply if the father was a registered tribal member and involved with his tribe. Even then, if there were no appropriate family members and the siblings' parents were interested in adoption the tribe could agree that placement with the sibling is in the child's best interest. As for what’s in the best interest of the child - personally, I think it's a bit of a catch-22. If the child does fall under an ICWA ruling then the child deserves to grow up surrounded by his culture so it makes sense for the child to be adopted by tribal members...however, if the siblings' parents adopted the child he could grow up surrounded by siblings with a shared genetic history. There is no right answer here...unfortunately the child will lose something, either his siblings or his culture. Ideally the siblings’ parents could adopt and involve themselves in the tribe’s culture and activities or a tribal couple could adopt and have very liberal sibling visitation – so child at least gets exposure to both his siblings and his culture. But realistically the ideal outcome is not usually what happens. The system isn't perfect and neither are the laws to protect children, but the blame in this scenario would fall on the child's parents...it was their abuse and/or neglect that caused the child to need the protection of the court, and unfortunately when that happens the outcome is never ideal for the child.

Question: DID YOU KNOW if you are an Indian registered with a tribe? and you are pregnant and you decide to do open adoption, you find a family your approve of, one that you want to raise your child, the Indian Tribe you are registered with can DENY YOU THE RIGHT to place that child with the family of your choosing? You CAN GET AN ABORTION and they can do nothing, but once you give birth to the child, they can prevent you from placing that child in a family of your choice! According to ICWA, Indian Child Welfare Act, this is true. We are facing this problem right now. I AM NOT KNOCKING INDIANS OR ICWA, just the way ICWA is being used in our case. Our daughter has been with us since she was born, we were in the hospital with her, she stayed in a room with us, WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HER INDIAN HERITAGE because her birth mom never mentioned it and we couldn't tell the birth mom had ANY Indian because she ONLY HAS 1/216. Our daughter has 1/432 Indian blood. We found out about her heritage after she was born and our lawyer had to let the tribe know, by law. Our daughter is now 2 months old and we are living a nightmare with all of this. We have a 12 year old son who is equally distraught. If we had known what we know now, we would have done things differently. PLEASE BE AWARE OF THIS LAW, seriously! WE HAD NO IDEA and now we may lose our daughter. We have faith and we are praying. Honestly, without it, we could not go on. Listen, I know Indians will think I am attacking them but that is not the case. My point is this: Our daugther is 1/2 African American and a smidgen of Indian. How can she be considered Indian? Just because her great great great great grandfather was Indian? What about the rest of her heritage? How will taking our daughter away help the Indians in any way? And besides what about the birth mom? Shouldn't she be able to decide where her daughter goes? I am just so shocked and upset by this! THE BIRTH MOTHER IS RED HEAD WITH PALE SKIN!!!!! The birth father is African American. People, listen, I know IT SOUNDS crazy but it is the law! Look it up! This pregnancy was the result of a one night stand. The birth father was notified and did not contest the adoption but he would also not acknowledge the child as his, so since he did'n't show up at court, his rights were waived by law. He knew about it all. I got on here last night, looking for comfort as we go back to court today. I guess I thought that people were genuinely kind and understanding. Please, before you bash or question a persons "question" read them thououghly and realize they are REAL PEOPLE you are responding to! Also, to Katherine, yes this is true. Trust me, our lives have been turned upside down. And I got the Birth Moms blood quantum wrong. I could not remember the exact number. It would be 1/200 something and our daughter is 1/500 something.

Answer: I have no idea if what you're writing is true, but there's something wrong with your math. If she had one great-great, etc. grandparent, she could be 128th Indian or 256th Indian, but not the numbers you're using. It's like this: if you have one parent who's indian, it's 1/2, and one grandparent is /4, then it's 1/8 for a great-grandparent, then 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128 and 256 and 512. So something isn't right here. Maybe you misheard or misunderstood. Look at this: "A biological or adoptive parent, whether Indian or non-Indian may object to and veto a proposed transfer of a case to tribal court. A prospective parent, the Indian child, or another party may object, but may not veto a transfer, and those objections would be covered under the "good cause" provision. In the event that a parent vetoes the transfer, the case will remain in state court. This is most commonly seen where one of the parents is non-Indian.[2][22][23]" This quote is from Wikipedia. So, you're not going to an Indian court for this. State laws vary widely, and sometimes it matters if the mother/father with indian heritage actually lived on the reservation, so you want to be sure you have a great lawyer. It sounds like your adoption should be allowed.

Question: Why does Palin think its wrong for indigenous natives of Alaska to hunt, or to take care of their own kids? Read this, its so sad and sick on Palin's part: Deennaa, an indigenous native of Alaska says: "Palin opposes tribal sovereignty - which also covers, under the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act(ICWA) the right to keep our own children. Where is anyone telling this in national news? She opposes our inherent (and by Federal Law) our rights to our traditional way of feeding ourselves by hunting & fishing - this being called the "Subsistence issue". This Subsistence battle is one of long standing in Alaska government and politics and IS well known in Alaska. Where do we hear of this in national news? She is shown so obscenely in pictures of hunting OUR moose and caribou and is praised for this, yet she is adamantly against the Federal Law that is our protection for the Subsistence way of life we have known for ice ages. Not only moose & caribou, but her and her husband want to further pollute our beautiful state with gold mining ( she's a gold digger in all senses of the meaning plus) and more sports fishing to take away from the indigenous peoples of Alaska who are in such dire straits out in our villages that if it were not for Subsistence, would suffer malnutrition and more hunger than we already suffer. Our people do not live in the same condition that Sarah Palin does. They do live in Big beautiful lakefront homes near the city hub of Wasilla and Anchorage, Alaska". "Gov. Palin has NOT sought to pass a state Constitutional amendment that would address the matter of rural subsistence rights and is working in opposition to the efforts of most Alaskans to resolve it in this way. She stands isolated in this regard". http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2008/09/… http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2008/09/1…

Answer: yada yada yada. Because it means that to you why should it to someone else. Sounds like you are either full of hot air or a parrot left over from the Ron Paul comics.