Blast from the Past: News Coverage of Wandahsega/Hannahville Indian Community Pre-ICWA Indian Child Welfare Victory over Michigan Social Services

Here from Neshnawbe News, Nov./Dec. 1973:

Here is the decision.

Wenona Singel: “Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real”

From MSU Today, here is “Faculty voice: Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real.”

Winona Singel

Wenona Singel

Professor of Law and Director of Indigenous Law and Policy Center Wenona Singel is currently researching and writing a book on her family’s multi-generational experience with forcible removal of Indian children in U.S. history. Below is an excerpt.

Five generations of my family experienced and responded to U.S. policies of forced displacement and assimilation. In 1840, my third-great-grandfather lost his Native family around the time of the U.S. military’s forcible mass detention and removal of Native people in southern Michigan.

He was raised by a Native family that moved from southern Michigan to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. My ancestors lived in northern Michigan settled in a Native village at Burt Lake, where they purchased multiple lots of land. Later, they transferred title to that land to the Governor of Michigan to be held in trust for their benefit.

On October 15, 1900, Sheriff Fred Ming of Cheboygan County and a lumber speculator named John McGinn poured kerosene on the entire Native village at Burt Lake, destroying everything but the church and one small shack. Following that event, which is now referred to as the Burt Lake Burnout by Michigan Native communities, children of Burt Lake village, including my great-grandfather’s generation, were sent to the federally operated Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School.

Indian boarding schools throughout the U.S. were well-documented sites of forcible assimilation, abuse, and neglect. Native children, who were frequently removed from their homes against their parents’ wishes, arrived at the schools, where they were stripped of their traditional clothing. Their hair was cut short, they were forbidden from speaking their Indigenous languages, they were taught menial skills, and they suffered from numerous forms of physical and sexual abuse as well as malnutrition, rampant spread of disease, and other forms of neglect.

Many Native children died during their institutionalization at Indian boarding schools, and the U.S. has only identified a portion of the grave sites of these children. Those who survived Indian boarding schools speak of persistent feelings of unworthiness and shame for being Indian.

My grandfather was among the children born to the generation that attended the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School. He attended Holy Childhood School of Jesus, an Indian boarding school operated by the Catholic Church in Harbor Springs, Michigan.

At Holy Childhood, my grandfather met my grandmother, who also lived at the school. They later married and had five children, all of whom were taken from them by social services.

One of the lasting legacies of Indian boarding schools is that children who attended these schools grew up without exposure to their own families’ parenting skills. Instead, survivors grew up learning cooking and cleaning over academics and were subjected to institutional abuse.

These experiences deeply traumatized many survivors of the schools and left them unprepared for gainful employment and economic prosperity in adulthood. Furthermore, social services agencies in the twentieth century treated Native families as incapable of raising their own children.

By 1978, 25% to 35% of all Native children in the U.S. were removed from their homes and placed in foster care, adoptive homes, or institutions. In nearly all cases, Native children were placed with families who were not Native, leading to the widespread loss of children’s cultural identity and connection with their tribal communities.

Like so many of the Native children born in the 1950s, my mother was removed from her family as an infant and lived in multiple foster care homes until she was adopted by a white Catholic family with one of her biological sisters at the age of five.

My mother and aunt experienced loss of their Anishinaabe cultural identity. They also confronted cruel negative stereotypes about Native Americans in their schools, church, and family.

As an 18-year-old girl, my mother became pregnant with me and left her adoptive family. For three years, my mother and I “couch-surfed” in temporary housing until my sister was born and we found an income-pooling commune founded by a church in Detroit. The following year, when I was four, my baby sister was taken from us and adopted by a white family.

Today, I am a parent to two children. I am committed to documenting the impact of federal and state Indian law and policy on Native families and the intergenerational trauma it produces. I want my own children to be the first generation in my family since at least 1840 not to experience separation from their parents. (However, my sister lost custody of her son following life in the adoptive home that she fled during adolescence.)

I became extremely self-reliant as a child to compensate for the challenges my family had as a result of abuse and neglect. However, many negative impacts of the toxic stress of my early years continue to affect me today, such as constant hyper-vigilance and the sensation of being in survival mode, even though I’ve long established the security I lacked in my youth.

My story is not exceptional; rather, it’s representative of and part of a pattern common to Native families throughout the country. Themes of substance abuse, thoughts of suicide, domestic violence, lack of secure housing, and financial issues plagued the adults in my family, contributing to toxic stress.

On the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale, which measures children’s exposure to various forms of abuse, neglect, dysfunction, and chaos, I score an 8 out of 10. Scores of 8 through 10 are shared by an estimated 1% to 3% of the U.S. population.

I know many Native community members who score a 10 out of 10. Studies have shown that people with an ACE score of 4 or more have a greater likelihood of developing chronic health conditions, they are four times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders than the general population, and they have a lower life expectancy.

They are also 12 times more likely to attempt suicide.

My work is intended to help other Native families understand how federal and state Indian policies have contributed to multiple generations of profound harm that continue to cause reverberating impacts in the present.

I am exploring how evidence-based strategies for surviving and thriving despite high ACE scores can be scaled and tailored to address historic trauma using culture, traditional teachings, and education.

I am also examining how our justice and political system might respond and provide remedies for the intergenerational harm.

I am an advocate of a multi-pronged approach that includes components such as an acknowledgement of the full effect of the harms experienced by Native families; formal and meaningful apologies; accountability for individuals, organizations, and governments; restitution; rehabilitation; and healing as defined and prescribed by Indigenous communities.

Try as they did, the federal and state governments did not succeed at whitewashing our people. It came close. And now they must take action on each of these prongs to help Indigenous people heal.

Publication: Performance Standards for Attorneys who Represent Tribal Governments in State ICWA Proceedings

From California Tribal Families Coalition (supported by Casey Family Programs), but not limited to California practice. This is a much-needed practice publication–a small part of which will be presented tomorrow at the federal ICWA training. Next week there is a full training using these standards at the TICA conference in Santa Barbara.

2023.7.6 Perf Standards For Attorneys Representing Tribes -FINAL

California ICWA Case Describing the State of Inquiry Cases

In re Samantha F.

Figuring out where the California Court of Appeal courts are on the initial inquiry duty when a child is removed from their home is about as easy as detangling a ball of Christmas lights. The Samantha F. case does a nice job of going through where everything is, and what courts have held. This issue is fairly specific to California, which has certain ICWA inquiry requirements in state law and court rules for the removal of any child from their home.  The question at issue seems particularly frustrating, because certain California courts have held there is no duty for contacting a child’s extended family re. tribal citizenship if the child was removed from the home with a warrant. However, there is such a duty if they were removed from the home without a warrant. In reading the cases, it feels like there was an oversight in drafting the state laws rather than some kind of legislative intent to suss out. Regardless, this has been the top litigated issue in California ICWA cases for almost a year now.  In fact, it was nearly a year ago I posted about this at length.  Apparently  filing is finally underway in the In re Ja. O. case now.  Briefing in the other set of cases appears to be complete but oral argument has not yet been set.

AFCARS Model Comment Available

As a reminder, comments for the ICWA AFCARS are due April 23. The Indian Law Clinic has developed a model comment for tribes to edit and use if they so wish. For a copy of the comment, please contact Cody Fowler, who has done the heavy lifting on this work, is an MSU grad and is helping out the Clinic for a few weeks! He can be contacted at:

fowler48@msu.edu

The proposed rule is here, as well as the link to submit comments:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/23/2024-03373/adoption-and-foster-care-analysis-and-reporting-system

As a reminder, this is a proposed rule to require nationwide data collection about ICWA children in foster care. We have never had nationwide data on ICWA cases, despite nearly ten years of active litigation to try to get the 2016 rule back, and many years of activism before that to get the 2016 rule.

Reminder: AFCARS Comments on ICWA Due April 23

I posted about this here, and comments are due April 23. The Indian Law Clinic should have a model comment available for tribes to use and edit by the end of next week.

This rule proposes to require states that receive federal funding for their foster care systems to gather accurate data on children in state courts who are subject to ICWA’s protections. This is done through the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) If you are a state worker, please encourage your state agency to comment in favor of this rule.

The proposed rule is here and is nearly identical to the one promulgated in 2016 (and then withdrawn by the Trump administration).

ProPublica Follow Up Article on Bonding “Expert”

In a follow up to the foster parent intervention article that was published in ProPublica and The New Yorker in October, this week ProPublica published an article on the woman who regularly wrote expert reports supporting foster care placement over parents and relatives.

Here.

Who hired and was paying her in the case that she was being deposed about? The foster parents, she answered. They wanted to adopt, she said, and had heard about her from other foster parents.

Had she considered or was she even aware of the cultural background of the birth family and child whom she was recommending permanently separating? (The case involved a baby girl of multiracial heritage.) Baird answered that babies have “never possessed” a cultural identity, and therefore are “not losing anything,” at their age, by being adopted. Although when such children grow up, she acknowledged, they might say to their now-adoptive parents, “Oh, I didn’t know we were related to the, you know, Pima tribe in northern California, or whatever the circumstances are.”

The Pima tribe is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The Way Forward: Report of the Alice Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

Here.

First Tribal Title IV-B 477 Integration

I am very excited about this. It’s the first step in loosening up the restrictions on HHS money that needs to be flowing to tribes for social service and justice systems.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2023/first-tribal-integration-title-iv-b-child-welfare-programs-477-plan

The new integration comes under Public Law 102-477 (P.L. 102-477). Specifically, ACF recommended, and BIA approved for Citizen Potawatomi Nation, to integrate its child welfare services grants with several other federal grants for employment, training and related services into a single program and budget to address Tribal priorities. 

“Public Law 102-477 has long been critical legislation for ACF to promote Tribal sovereignty, and expansion to include new ACF programs helps meet our nation-to-nation responsibilities,” said ACF Acting Assistant Secretary Jeff Hild. “The feedback we hear from our Tribal advisory committee and Tribal leaders is Tribes know best how to serve their citizens, and 477 is one way to do this.” 

Under P.L. 102-477, Tribes can integrate their federal employment, training and related services from across the federal government to improve the effectiveness of those services. Tribes wishing to integrate a program into a 477 plan must first submit a proposed plan to DOI that identifies the programs to be integrated and consolidated. Once a program is included in such a plan, Tribes have very broad flexibility in use of those funds. 

Comment Deadline to Feds on ICWA Needs Extended to January 12

This extension is regarding the letter in this post.

The Administration (DOI, HHS, and DOJ) are asking for input on the following:

What additional supports would Tribal leaders find helpful to build their Tribe’s capacity to exercise their rights and responsibilities under ICWA?  

Are there specific supports you believe the federal government could provide to help state courts and child welfare agencies meet their obligations under ICW A? 

In your experience, are there specific aspects or requirements of ICWA where state courts and agencies need to build greater understanding or capacity? 

Are there existing State-Tribe collaborative partnerships or processes that you believe have helped support effective implementation ofICWA?