ICWA Part V Children are Gifts

A bit of the history behind the need for the law can be found at American Bar dot org.  An excerpt of B.J. Jones  "The Indian Child Welfare Act  The need for a separate law :"

***Ensuring a Future

A look at history reveals why Congress determined a special law was needed to protect the rights of Indian children and their parents. Before 1978, as many as 25 to 35 percent of the Indian children in certain states were removed.... Non-Indian judges and social workers--failing to appreciate traditional Indian child-rearing practices--perceived day-to-day life in the children's Indian homes as contrary to the children's best interests.

We knew social workers by their walk, their attitude and hated to see them make home visits.  Inspections: white glove type with their  nose in the air.  They acted like they were going to be contaminated just being in the house, breathing the same air.  Did they ever once offer to help?  Really help, like get us a reliable babysitter, pitch in and help clean, offer to watch the kids so we could get a break?  Ahh, we were expected to be Mrs. Cleaver and/or Mr. Cleaver.

In Minnesota, for example, an average of one of every four Indian children younger than age one was removed.... A number of these children were taken from their homes simply because a paternalistic state system failed to recognize traditional Indian culture and expected Indian families to conform to non-Indian ways.

I liked going to my Auntie's house cause we could sit and talk or get our shawls and outfits ready and they'd take us to the powwow.  At our house, kids came to watch TV or just hang out.  At all times, we knew the rules, the consequences.  We even watched over each other.  We learned to work through our problems.  And we learned who could be trusted and who to stay away from.  Surprise, surprise, it was our family we counted on.

I think of all the times I've been accosted by a member of "dominant society" and yelled at because I didn't do things "right," I was doing something different.  I'm stunned by their discourtesy when they walk away thinking they've done their duty.  If I'm not breaking the law, then don't say anything unless you can be courteous about it.

Other children were removed because of the overwhelming poverty their families were facing....it was used by some state entities as evidence of neglect and, therefore, grounds for taking children from their homes.

My mom used to get us a lot of rummage sale clothes.  I got a lot of rummage sale clothes.  Reason: so kids could play in them without worrying about getting them dirty or stained or ripped.  When the clothes got too old, they became cleaning rags or used in blankets or rugs.  We got new clothes, we knew these were to be taken care of.  Did anyone outside of our tribe offer to help get clothes?

It was not only the high number of children being removed from their homes, but also the fact that 85 to 90 percent of them were being placed with non-Indians that caught the attention of Congress. Congress was actively promoting the continued viability of Indian nations as separate sovereigns and cultures at that time. By enacting the substantive placement preferences in ICWA--which require that Indian children, once removed, be placed in homes that reflect their unique traditional values (25 U.S.C. 1915)--Congress was acknowledging that no nation or culture can flourish if its youngest members are removed. The act was intended by Congress to protect the integrity of Indian tribes and ensure their future. 

***Bolding and underlining are my additions.

Has very much changed since the seventies?  Not much that I can see as far as the standards we're judged by.  Though it is nice that the kids are in homes where we actually know the people keeping them.  We're more involved as families when a child ends up in the system.  We hear the final decision is made by a tribal court judge.  People are still learning to manipulate the system; it's easier to catch if at least one of the social workers is traditional.  Everyone on the rez knows the "church" standards.  It helps when more and more traditionals talk about our traditions, our culture.  There is still a lot more that needs to be done.  The ICWA is not perfect, no system is.  We just have to keep on keeping on and the ICWA will work for us.

Please read "The Indian Child Welfare Act  The need for a separate law :" in its entirety.

Our children are gifts.  Gifts to be taken care of, loved, protected.  Parents are gifts.  Gifts to be taken care of, loved, protected.  Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, Friends: all are gifts. Gifts to be taken care of, loved, protected.

What are our tribes?

ICWA Part IV Birth Parents

Some more hard facts regarding enrollment.  I won't be mincing words with this post.  So, if you can't read the following words with an open mind and really think about what I'm saying, then best hit the back button and go elsewhere.

To meet blood requirements for enrollment one must be first descended from an enrolled member.  And here is a chart that I found that explains the blood quantum as provided by the BIA.  I didn't find this at their site.  Keep in mind this only goes to the xx/64.  I know some people whose quantum reads xx/128.  Enrollment requirements are determined by the tribe.  This chart is for their use. And for the mathematically inclined, check the rounding of the fractions.

I'm on the rolls as 1/2, I should be 15/16.  My father is non Indian according to the enrollment requirements of my tribe, even though he is 7/8 Anishinabe.  He is from another band, not considered part of our band.  Culturally, he is Anishinabe, he speaks Anishinabe, though not quite as fluently as some would like.  My mom is full blood according to the requirements of my tribe, Band I should say.  I and my siblings can't be enrolled in his Band/tribe as my mom is considered non-Indian in that band, we don't have enough blood to meet the 1/2 requirement.  My sons would still be enrolled in their father's Band if I hadn't been enrolled: I'd be considered non-Indian, even though I am 15/16.  Their children would be eligible to be enrolled, even if the mother was non-Indian as half my son's blood clears the 1/4 requirement.  Make any sense to you yet?

Well, join the club.  It gets mind-boggling at times.  And the issue get clouded further because the enrollment, as least in my tribe/band, requires a birth certificate and a notarized statement and/or marriage certificate and a direct link to an enrolled member on one of those lists.  And that's another can of worms.  You may have read one or two rants on the subject. 

I've had a talk with my nieces, nephews and sons.  Reminded them when they chose a "non-Indian" as partner/spouse that their child may or may not be eligible for enrollment.  They knew the kids would still be considered Indian, at least in my eyes, though they wouldn't have any claims as an enrolled Band member, unless blood quantum for my Band/Tribe was changed.  And therein lies the issue behind enrollment and Federal recognition.  Another can of worms; or would that be rant? 

I prefer "non-Indian" when speaking in certain contexts and now you know the reason why.  And you also know why it is difficult to use the term Indian, Native American, Indigenous.  Most tribes are referring to themselves by their own names.  Time for it, I say.  And some think we are a simple people.  teehee.

ICWA Part III Federal Status/population of American Indians

According to the *Facts for Features at Census dot gov, 5.1 million of the nation's total population are American Indian and Alaska Natives.  About half or 2.5 million, are one race.

Total US population is 308,745,538.

                                       5,100,000 American Indian/Alaska Native + one or more other race

                                       2,550,000 American Indian/Alaska Native race alone

There are 566 Federally recognized tribes.  Using Census data figures above for those who identify themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native.  

Top ten tribes in the US according to **infoplease dot com have populations ranging from 23,583 to 308,013 and those top ten total 1,169,548  meaning 556^Edit correction tribes are much closer to the 4,595 figure (2.1 million).    (9,189 for 5.1 million)  Keep in mind these numbers represent those who identify themselves as American Indian/Alaskan Native.  Those actually enrolled are probably smaller than that.  There, the hard numbers.  

It has been estimated that American Indians will disappear as federally recognized tribes within two generations if the current enrollment requirements are kept in force as is.  We will always be here culturally as whatever tribe we belong to as long as there are people.  It is our sovereign status we are fighting to protect and keep, something we have always fought to protect.

The loss of even one person eligible for enrollment brings the end of Native Americans federal status that much closer.  The BIA website has an FAQ page which you might find interesting.  It explains a bit more the complexity of life as a Native American who is also a US citizen, something which even many Native Americans don't fully understand.  

FYI

***10 most populous cities

New York City pop. 8.245 million

Los Angelos pop. 3.82 million

Chicago 2.707 million

Houston pop. 2.145 million

Philadelphia pop. 1.536 million

Phoenix pop. 1.469 million

San Antonio pop. 1.36 million

San Diego pop. 1.326 million

Dallas pop. 1.223 million

San Jose pop. 967,487          (24 million people in these cities)

Native American/Alaska Native pop. 2.5 million

Two million people out of 308 million isn't very much, is it?

*As of the 2011 American Community Survey, the nation's population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race. They made up 1.6 percent of the total population. Of this total, about half were American Indian and Alaska Native only, and about half were American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races.

Source: 2011 American Community Survey 

** I used these figures as I had a hard time loading the census site.

***I searched for the ten most populous cities and got the population figure from that city's website that showed on the search page

All figures and links current as of 24 Jul 2013.

ICWA Part II

Adoption issues have a big impact for the tribal enrollment.  Once parents sign away parental rights, the child can no longer be enrolled.  One needs to have an enrolled birth parent in order to be enrolled.  Even years later, when the adoptee returns home to his tribe as an adult, he/she can no longer be enrolled.   This is why enrollment requirements of each tribe need to be checked.  Each tribe has their own standards.

A listing of some current info can be checked at the Tribal Court Clearinghouse.  They have more info about Tribal Court systems in the United States.  For those who'd like more information on legal aspects, this is a good place to start.  North Carolina is home to Eastern Band of Cherokee.  There are links to the federally recognized tribes with included estimates of tribal members, exact numbers may or may not be confidential. Note:  F E D E R A L L Y  R E C O G N I Z E D.  Some states have recognized tribes without federal recognition. 

And therein lies the key.  For tribes to stay on federally recognized status, they must have eligible members.  Those members must have direct descent from an enrolled member.  The enrollment starts with a list created back in the 1930's or thereabouts.  And those lists stated the amount of federally recognized blood the member had.  That is the critical issue for enrollment purposes.  Once a child drops below that amount, they aren't federally recognized, though they are culturally recognized.

Adoption disrupts the enrollment process if neither parent has enrolled the child.  Once parental rights have been signed away, that parent has given away all claims for that child.  It is permanent and cannot be taken back.  Therefore the child cannot be enrolled, once the parent signs that paper.  I mention this again as some people have adopted Indian children thinking they'll have control of any monies the child would be entitled to.  Not so.  If a child has been enrolled prior to adoption, the enrollment stands b u t most tribes have now set up trust funds which the child receives when they reach age of majority.  If the child hasn't been enrolled and the adoption goes through, the child will never be enrolled because the parent g a v e  a w a y ALL rights for the child.

I can understand the pressure an Indian woman can be under when she gives birth and there is a problem that involves social workers.  I, myself, was visited four times by one when one of my sons was born.  And, I believe that my ex-husband was under pressure also.  The argument was that it would take a lot of money, time and care to raise my son and so I should give my son up for adoption with the caveat that I could still have contact with him.  Huhmm.  And people wonder why I get so mad when such issues come up.

I don't even want to consider what my son might think of me if I had surrendered to the pressure to put him up for adoption when he was born.  Literally, born.  I remember the gasps from the nurses and the doctor paused.  I was barely into the recovery room when the social worker appeared.  Four times before the worker understood the word NO.  And the pressure didn't let up with that.

All during my son's childhood, I've been visited by Social workers who were investigating me for various things.  Thanks to my mom and uncle, I think the message finally got through that my son was MY son and he would STAY with me.  Both of my sons are now adult and they have good relationships with all our family and tribe.  They have formed good friendships with non tribal members.  This was accomplished with the help of my family-my parents, my siblings, my aunts, my uncles, my cousins, my friends.  Both my sons are in good health and they have a pretty good self image.  

So, now, when I hear a child has been adopted out, I think of my experience and wonder.... 

ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act

The Indian Child Welfare Act, ICWA, pronounced IK wa, was passed in 1978.  Children are very important in our tribes.  They are gifts sent to us by the Creator.  Yesterday, the Cherokee Nation filed a petition in the Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl case.  All of Indian country is watching this case because of the implications it holds for a child in the system and for all tribes.

I have strong feelings about this matter.  We, my family, struggle with this issue.  I firmly believe that the welfare of the child comes first and the best interests of the child lie with the tribe, the family.  My thoughts, my feelings in this matter, come from experience with the system, both tribal and state.

1.  How many of us have had their child throw a tantrum in public and have to take the child to a "time out" or risk having the cops called?  If one is off reservation, the child ends up in the state welfare system.

2.  Social workers have heavy caseloads and don't always get their facts right.  They rely on outsiders who see an incident and report it without all the facts.  Whose values and beliefs are those decisions based on?

I spent a few years explaining our social customs to outside social workers.  They got their training in clinical situations.  Very few of them attended social gatherings or functions where they could see tribal customs in action.  By attending a few gatherings, I believe they'd have a much better basis from which to make their decisions that have such an impact on lives of tribal members.

My understanding of ICWA is that all available family members must be notified when a child enters the system.  If no family member is able to take the child, then and only then, is an outside source found.  And, here is a conflict: our definition of family extends to several generations and can include lateral sides of the family.  There is a push to limit "family" to just the child and parents, or "immediate" family which includes siblings of one of the parents.  Rarely are the grandparents considered.

Well, heavy caseloads or not, social workers need to make a good faith effort to contact people.  And this doesn't always happen.  Or maybe one or two people are contacted.  Who knows what's in those confidential documents?

I am not privy to all the facts in the above case.  I can only surmise, based on my own experience.