Monique Vondall-Rieke on the Indian Child Welfare Act

COMMENTS ON THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE CHALLENGE TO ICWA

(or “More one-sided arguments that we get used to in Indian Country”)

 

By Monique Vondall-Rieke, J.D.,

Director, Association of Village Council Presidents Tribal Justice Center

 

BETHEL, AK – The announcement of A.D., et al. v. Washburn by the conservative group known as the Goldwater Institute comes with a bitter deja vu of “haven’t we heard this before?”  I’ve got a few things that I can say are wrong with the pleadings filed by Goldwater on behalf of minor American Indian children, “next friend,” and potential adoptive parents. Mostly, however, I’ve got even more to say on the one-sided EPIC report they have produced to coincide with their summation that ICWA should be declared unconstitutional.

First of all, the report does its purpose for Goldwater regardless of the medical and psychological research that exists and documents the loss of cultural identity and historical trauma that American Indian children have been victims of for centuries. The report also fails to point any blame at even the beginnings of Indian to federal government (i.e. “founding fathers”) relationships and what they are based upon. The truth of the harms of the Doctrine of Discovery is avoided again and the convoluted desire to have an American Indian child at the center of arguments of white conservatives is the Hail Mary of what Justice Scalia coined as “jiggery-pokery” in the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. (Not that I would support his use of the term or dissenting opinion, of course.) It just doesn’t surprise me that the Goldwater Institute has invested time and money into a campaign to smear a federal law that undoes what historical trauma to American Indians has done for centuries in one fell swoop of a few isolated wins against ICWA.

The report begins with unmistakably sad stories of failures within American Indian communities across America where ICWA, they allege, did not protect the child. What Goldwater Institute fails to do, however, is focus on why some children are not connected to their tribal affiliation more than when they reach an ICWA stage. What they fail to point out is the overwhelming questions like: what were the incidences that led to those people being isolated from their cultural communities? The answer in most cases is because, somewhere in their lineage, someone was removed from their cultural communities and placed either in a non-Indian home, or in a boarding school. Both situations are damaging for a number of historically traumatic reasons told in stories over and over by our ancestors.

There are two reasons I support ICWA: my oldest son and my youngest son. First, my oldest son was born at a time in my life when I was a precarious young woman who was unsettled and seeking self-identity. I went from being a Catholic to a bible-banging Christian to a Buddhist and it was not until 1999, twelve years after my oldest son was born and adopted by his biological grandparents that I was able to find my spirituality and return to a circle that had been broken by cycles of Catholic influence of my ancestors. My son was nearly adopted by a white family but, thanks to ICWA, the adoption met the family exception and he was adopted by his father’s grandparents, who agreed to keep the adoption open and allowed me to see him. Today, we have a wonderful relationship and he and his beautiful girlfriend are about to give me my third grandson. As an adult, my son sought out his American Indian heritage and came to live with me, my other two children and my husband. I thank ICWA to this day for allowing me to open my eyes to allowing his grandparents to adopt him because they raised him to be a respectful young man.

The second reason I support ICWA is because my youngest son was adopted by my husband and I in 2005. He came to us through an ICWA relative placement and is the light of our life daily. My husband is a kind, caring, loving father and I would have never been able to see that side of him without ICWA giving us the gift of my son through the relative placement requirements of ICWA. In fact, his brother and sister were adopted by my sister, so ICWA has touched many of my family’s lives and has allowed these three children to be raised in our cultural family nucleus. If it were not for ICWA, the relative would not have approached us for early placement of the children, and, without going into detail, my young son could possibly not even be alive today. So, I defend ICWA against its attack and always will. My husband, in fact, wrote a song in gratitude of ICWA. He is a non-Indian (Hungarian) and our son knows his heritage. He knows he is American Indian and can be Hungarian when he wants to be, or Irish, or French, but most of all, he knows that he is safe and loved in his home by his mother and father.

Incidentally, the report by the Goldwater Institute fails to mention that keeping American Indian children in foster care is a multi-billion dollar business for state human service agencies. The Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, AFCARS Report of 2013 reveals that American Indian children make up .9% of the population of U.S. children but represent 2% of the population of children in foster care in the U.S. Some states with high numbers of American Indian populations, like South Dakota, statistics reveal that up to 50% of the children in foster care placement in that state are American Indian.

The Association of Village Council Presidents in Alaska represents 56 tribes and villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region (“Y-K Delta”). The newly-developed South West Region of Alaska shows, in the University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research’s report titled “Trends in Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Among Children in Foster Care in Alaska,” that for every 1000 of children in general population, 20 Alaska Native children will end up in foster care, which is more than double the rate of any other region in Alaska. The Y-K Delta has several remote villages and the Office of Children Services for Alaska is deeply involved in the placement of children out of their communities due to the lack of (1) American Indian foster homes in the region and (2) lack of kinship foster care funding for family placements, unlike other states. Although other reasons exist, the quick judgment of removal of a child takes place far more often than in other areas of the United States versus the cost of making a “good faith effort” to place the child in an American Indian home as required by ICWA. These statistics and the removal from communities only exacerbate the loss of cultural identity and increase the stigma of historical trauma on the children.

These are the reasons that ICWA is so important to American Indian children. There are some sad casualties, but in any foster care system, whether the children are American Indian or not, there are casualties and all agencies need to strive for a no-casualty goal to preserve the health and welfare of children, regardless of race or ethnicity, or, yes, even political status. The fix to those problems, however, is not to abolish the Indian Child Welfare Act and not to exploit the misfortunes of failed systems and failure stories. These facts and statistics, Goldwater Institute, is not “pure applesauce.”

 

 

Here are the lyrics to the song written by my husband, Stuart Rieke:

 

Listen to Native Peoples First

Call this a protest or a culture song

There’s no changing the laws of diversity

Jesus himself battled the Romans who were wrong

Cause Rome wanted only one set of eyes to see.

 

Children interpret their daydreams

Through a culture they inherit.

Do you want them to be held away?

Or do you hope they share it?

 

You want to help write their songs?

But first understand, first sing along.

We gotta learn to listen to Native Peoples first

Before we all try to fix this broken Universe.

 

Call this a plea to reason

Or a personal narrative.

My son sees the seasons

Through eyes of the cultures where he lives.

 

Every generation is like a wave

You’ve got to give them room to feel the shore

How can you think they’re yours to save?

They need their own center, their cultural core!

 

You want to help write their songs?

But first understand, first sing along.

We gotta learn to listen to Native Peoples first

Before we all try to fix this broken Universe

Federal Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Challenge to Minnesota’s Indian Child Welfare Statute

Here is the order in Doe v. Jesson (D. Minn.):

42 DCT Order Denying PI

Pleadings TK:

State_Memorandum_ResponsePrelimInjuc

MilleLacs_Memorandum_ResponsePrelimInjunc

MilleLacs_MotiontoDismiss

State_Memorandum_MotiontoDismiss

State_Response_AnonymousParty

We posted the complaint here.

Constitutional Challenge to Parts of Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act

Here is the complaint in Doe v. Jesson (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

25. MIFPA defines an “Indian child” as “an unmarried person who is under age 18 and is: (1) a  member of an Indian tribe; or (2) eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” Minn. Stat. 260.755, subd. 8. By contrast, ICWA defines an Indian child as either “(a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member ofan Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. 1903(4) (emphasis added).

26. Many Indian tribes have only blood quantum or lineage requirements as prerequisites for membership. See, e.g., Paul Spruhan, The Origins, Current Status, & Future Prospects ofBlood Quantum as the Definition ofMembership in the Navajo Nation, 8 Tribal L.J. 1, 5 (2007); see also Rev. Const. & Bylaws of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, art. II, 1(c) (child eligible ifborn to a member and child is at least one quarter Minnesota Chippewa Indian blood). The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe is a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Id. at art. III.

27. Unlike ICWA, the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act, facially and as applied, gives Indian tribes the right under the color of state law to interfere with voluntary, private adoptions.

Adoption Industry Sues to Challenge New ICWA Guidelines

Here is the complaint in National Council for Adoption v. Jewell (E.D. Va.):

Complaint

Oops. Kate posted this forever ago.

Call for Written Comments on New AFCARS Regulations

We’ve written about this in the past. Here is a letter from NICWA explaining more about the regulations, and the reason for written comments (and if you scroll to the bottom, they’ve even provided a sample comments letter):

Dear Advocates for the Indian Child Welfare Act,

The National Indian Child Welfare Association has been diligently working for over 25 years to increase state compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This has included training of state and tribal workers, helping tribes develop inter-governmental agreements with states, participating in state and federal ICWA cases, and advocating for federal monitoring of state ICWA compliance. One of the areas where the greatest need exists is data collection. No federal agency collects comprehensive data on the status of native children and their families who are involved in state child welfare proceedings and subject to ICWA.

 NICWA has advocated for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the Department of Health and Human Services to collect ICWA data on individual cases, both because of the relationship they have with states through funding and policy, and because of federal law and policy that directs them to collect some related data. ACF has resisted efforts to collect more comprehensive ICWA data in the past, but draft regulations published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2015 propose collecting new data within the federal government’s largest data system for children who are placed in out of home care by state or county child welfare authorities. This system is the Automated Foster Care and Adoption Reporting System (AFCARS) and these proposed regulations present the best opportunity for tribal nations to finally convince ACF to collect ICWA data.

 NICWA is making the case that these proposed regulations should also include ICWA data elements, which are open for public comment until April 10, 2015, but we need your help if we are going to convince ACF to do this. The process for evaluating comments and what changes should be made in AFCARS will look at the number of individual comments ACF receives as well as the content of those comments. In other words, if we are able to provide ACF with substantial numbers of comments that recommend the inclusion of ICWA data elements in AFCARS, we may finally have a federal data system that regularly collects and tracks ICWA data. To make your job of filing comments easier, NICWA has provided a sample comments letter that you can use or modify as you see fit. We are also providing instructions below on how to file your comments electronically.

 This is an almost a once in a lifetime opportunity to finally get a more comprehensive collection of ICWA data. The last time AFCARS was open for substantive changes was in the early 1990’s so we probably won’t see another opportunity like this for many, many years. NICWA will be filing comments, but we also need your help too. If you have any questions about AFCARS, the proposed regulations, or how this will help ICWA compliance, please don’t hesitate to contact either myself or Addie Smith addie@nicwa.org. I want to thank you in advance for your help to increase the information and tools we have to increase protections under ICWA for our native children and families.

Best Regards,

David Simmons

Notice of Public Rulemaking on AFCARS

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-09/pdf/2015-02354.pdf

AFCARS Sample Comments Letter

Instructions on how to file comments electronically via www.regulations.gov (see link below for submission)

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=ACF-2015-0001-0001

  1. In the Comment box provide your name, contact information, and who you are submitting the comments on behalf of. State that you are uploading a file attachment that contains your comments. Don’t try to copy your comments letter in here unless it is less than 5000 characters (approximately 1.25 pages of text).
  2. In the Upload File(s) box click on Choose File then select the comments letter from your computer.
  3. In the First Name and Last Name boxes add the contact person’s name
  4. Check the appropriate box for whether you want to show your contact information or whether you are submitting the comments on behalf of a third party.

David Simmons, MSW | Director of Government Affairs and Advocacy

National Indian Child Welfare Association

5100 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 300

Portland, OR 97239

Evelyn Stevenson Walks On — Original Proponent of ICWA

Evelyn Stevenson, longtime tribal attorney, advocate and original proponent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, passed away on March 12, 2015 at 9:11am in Ronan, Montana on the Flathead Indian Reservation.  Evelyn was a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and was the second tribal member, and first tribal member woman, to become a licensed attorney.

A wake will begin at noon on Sunday, March 15, 2015 in the Elmo Community Hall in Elmo, Montana (phone number: 406.849.5505).  A rosary will begin at 8:00pm that evening.  The funeral will be held at the Elmo Community Hall on Monday, March 16th at 11:00am, followed by burial at the Ronan Cemetery.

Details on here career here.

Reported California COA Opinion Reverses Termination of Parental Rights for Violation of ICWA

Ventura County Human Services Agency initially told the juvenile court that ICWA doesn’t apply to Alaska Natives (or, as stated in the opinion, “Eskimo families”).

Here is the opinion in In re H.G.:

In re HG — B255712

Federal Court Challenge to Onondaga Nation ICW Jurisdiction Defeated

Here are the materials in Pitre v. Shenandoah (N.D. N.Y):

12-5 Onondaga Nation Motion to Dismiss

20-5 Onondaga County Motion to Dismiss

34-2 Oswego County Motion to Dismiss

45 DCT Order

FBA Webinar TODAY: Native Service Members, Veterans, and the ICWA

Native Service Members, Veterans, and the ICWA
TODAY
1:00-2:00 p.m. EST

The recent Supreme Court decision, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, focused on the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to adoptions. A key fact not mentioned by the Court in its decision was the role of the biological father’s military service in the case. From the adoption attorneys who took advantage of the timing of his deployment to Iraq, to the placement of the child with the adoptive couple during his deployment, the biological father had an uphill battle to gain custody of his own child when he returned from deployment. In addition, the particular limitations of an active duty service member regarding travel and pay were disregarded entirely by both the Court and the media covering the case.

Presenter:
Kathryn E. Fort, Staff Attorney, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law (view bio here)

CLE Credit: 1 credit hour (pending)

Who Won American Indian Law and Policy 2014? Third Round Bracket 1 of 2

Now it’s getting tight. We’re down to the last 16.

Category 1 — Indian nations

#1 Alaska Native tribes v. #12 Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin

Alaska Native tribes once again won handily, earning 86 percent of the votes over the Omaha Tribe. The Wisconsin Oneidas continue to surprise, knocking off the Cayugas and their impressive Second Circuit tax victory with two-thirds of the vote.

Interesting matchup here, with two contenders that had a big year facing off against state and local governments.

#7 Gun Lake Tribe v.#3 Bay Mills Indian Community

Enrollment numbers don’t matter! The Gun Lakers earn 61 percent of the vote and take out the Sault Tribe and its vast membership. It can’t be that there’s no internet in the UP, right?

Well, the internet worked for Bay Mills, winning by one vote over LCO and the Wisconsin treaty tribes. Bay Mills makes a living winning by one vote.

So another ‘Nish matchup. Will Gun Lake be able to get past another Upper Peninsula Chippewa community?

Category 2 — Laws, Doctrines, and the Like

#1 Indian Child Welfare Act v. #5 Intra-tribal disputes

In the battle for Indian civil rights, nonvoters prevailed over voters, and ICWA moves on with 57 percent of the vote. Maybe that TT post on South Dakota came a day too late.

Well, intra-tribal disputes took down Indian gaming, with 58 percent of the vote. I hope that won’t be true in real life.

#2 Tribal sovereign immunity v. #3 VAWA

With 72 percent of the vote, it turns out sovereignty does predate knowledge of sovereignty. Cool, I guess.

VAWA and the hopes it encourages for tribal governance in the future (as well as its 67 percent vote tally) easily defeated tribal court exhaustion, which wilted with fatigue near the end.