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.

Taylor Mills on Self-Indigenization and the Indian Child Welfare Act

Dr. Taylor Elyse Mills has published “Protecting the Next Seven Generations: Self-Indigenization and the Indian Child Welfare Act” in Genealology.

Here is the abstract:

In 1978, the United States enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) “to protect the best interest of Indian Children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children and placement of such children in homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.” The ICWA was codified to address centuries of genocidal government policies, boarding schools, and coercive adoptions that ruptured many Native families. Now one of the strongest pieces of legislation to protect Native communities, the ICWA was designed to ensure that Native foster children are placed with Native families. Implementing the ICWA has not been smooth, however, as many non-Native foster parents and state governments have challenged the ICWA. While the ICWA has survived these legal challenges, including the recent 2023 Haaland v. Brackeen Supreme Court case, the rise of non-Natives claiming Native heritage, also known as self-indigenizers or “pretendians,” represents a new threat to the ICWA. This Article presents a legal history and analysis of the ICWA to unpack the policy implications of pretendians in the U.S. legal context. This Article demonstrates how the rise of pretendians threatens to undermine the very purpose of the ICWA and thereby threaten the sovereignty of Native peoples. By legally sanctioning the adoption of Native children into non-Native pretendian homes, the ICWA can facilitate a new era of settlers raising Native children, rather than preventing this phenomenon as intended. In response, this Article offers concrete policy recommendations to bolster the ICWA against this threat.

Tennessee COA Dismisses ICWA Appeal as Interlocutory, but Notes that Existing Indian Family Exception is NOT THE LAW

Here is the opinion in In re Epik W.:

The EIF excerpt:

In remanding the case, however, we would be remiss if we did not call the Juvenile Court’s attention to the shared agreement that both the Department and the Tribe have in this appeal regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, which was the doctrinal basis upon which the Juvenile Court rejected the ICWA and denied the request for transfer. Indeed, in response to the Tribe’s general advocacy on appeal concerning the invalidity of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, the Department has specifically disclaimed the vitality of the doctrine, arguing, as we previously noted, that federal regulations “foreclose reliance” on it. Although we have little doubt that the parties still disagree on other issues relevant to a decision to transfer this matter to the tribal court, the shared agreement between the Tribe and the Department regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine strongly counsels in favor of the Juvenile Court revisiting the transfer request (as the doctrine was its sole cited basis for denial).

There is only one public brief available, but it’s relevant:

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

Alaska SCT Decides Cross-Border Jurisdictional Dispute over Indian Child

Here is the opinion in O’Brien v. Delaplain:

ICWA Webinar Series: The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Role of Tribal and State Attorneys, October 8, 2024, 2:00 – 3:45 pm EDT

National Indian Country Training Initiative Online Training Announcement

Title: ICWA Webinar Series: The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Role of Tribal and State Attorneys

Date: October 8, 2024, 2:00 – 3:45 pm EDT

 

Register Here: https://usao.webex.com/weblink/register/r07e72e3d5222b35a4d9c7b80a47fc4f7

Registration deadline: October 4, 2024

Non-DOJ applicants will receive notification of their application status by: October 7, 2024

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and placement in foster and adoptive homes. Tribal and State attorneys play important roles in advancing the protections of ICWA.  This webinar is the fourth in a multipart series concerning the application of ICWA in State courts and the role of Tribal courts in cases involving ICWA. Kate Fort, a nationally recognized expert on ICWA will discuss the implications of ICWA in representing Tribes and States in child welfare cases. Topics will include transfer, state agreements, and many other important topics. CLE has been requested.

There is no tuition charge for this training.

If you have any questions, please contact Heather Cumper at heather.cumper@usdoj.gov or Leslie A. Hagen at leslie.hagen3@usdoj.gov.

Vermont Law Review Symposium Panel on the Indian Child Welfare Act, Today @ Noon

Link to YouTube livestream here. Panelists are Lauren van Schilfgaard and Fletcher.

Hosted by the Vermont Law Review, this symposium will focus on legal challenges and innovative solutions to protect our most vulnerable population: children. It will be held as a four-part lunch series beginning on Thursday, September 19.

The first installment will focus on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The discussion will explore the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on ICWA and its long-term implications for Native American children and tribal sovereignty.

If you’re unable to join us in person on the VLGS campus, a livestream will also be available. You can access the livestream via the button below or by clicking here.

2024 Michigan Supreme Court Candidates and ICWA

Michigan judicial campaigns are down-ballot and nonpartisan but sometimes candidates reveal their ideological biases.

One Michigan Supreme Court candidate is a Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives who recently made a speech in opposition to an amendment to the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act. This candidate believes the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional because two members of the United States Supreme Court dissented in Haaland v. Brackeen. Dissents are not the law. He also made material misrepresentations about tribal membership rules and how the state law best interests of the child standard works in ICWA cases.

The other Michigan Supreme Court candidate has expressed her commitment to the rule of law. We like her lots.

Incidentally, the MIFPA amendment passed and is now law.

Alaska SCT Affirms ICWA Tribal Court Transfer over Foster Parents’ Objection

Here is the opinion in Rosalind M. v. State of Alaska: