Strollerderby

My BIL and his wife were actually named in the will of a Native American woman they had known for years and she died of cancer. She wanted her two children with them. But it didn't matter if those were her wishes or that she took every step to ensure the children would be raised by them--it was overturned and the children went back to the tribe.

I was sad for everyone involved. Many times these adoptions don't go well, and the children have a great deal of difficulty, but that is mainly due to FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) and not because the adoptive parents aren't loving.  

This is outrageous. Racism hurts so many children who need to be in loving, capable families. As an Indian (from India) raised by a white mother, I know that it's important to grow up with a sense of one's own ethnicity. It's even more important, in my opinion, to grow up with drug-free and fit parents.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a complicated and necessary piece of legislation that applies to all adoptions of Native American children. It's not about racism - it's about the dual-citizenship status of American Indian people in the US. Effectively, an individual parent doesn't have clearance to place their child outside of their nation without the nation's agreement... it's different than majority-population ways of thinking, which says that the mother and father are the only people who should have full decision-making power about adoption decisions. Like it or not, sovereign nations have final say in the placement of their children.

If I understand the law correctly, the child is not likely to stay with a parent who is too ill from addiction to care for him properly. This child may still be adopted, but the tribe will be involved in the placement - with the emphasis on placing the child first with members of his own tribe, then with other Native American people. ICWA came about as a means to halt cultural genocide policies that have resulted in "stolen generations" (the same as occurred in Aboriginal communities in Australia) and intergenerational family and nation disruptions on a huge scale. I think it's very hard for people outside the history and reality to understand why it's needed, and why tribes are so determined to prevent the loss of any more of their children.

I hear what you're saying, Lula. It seems like there should have been something in place to prevent the Larson's from adopting in the first place. If the child has been with them for the first 6 months of his life, he is obviously bonded to them now. I think about what my relationship was like with my kids when they were 6 months old. I was the only one that could soothe them at times. It doesn't seem fair to essentially tell a baby, "Sorry, but your well being is less important than these social and political matters."

Read "Pigs in Heaven" by Barbara Kingsolver for an interesting and varied perspective on this issue.

Manjari, that's why I get angry when the legal realities around any given adoption situation aren't made crystal clear to everyone involved from the very beginning. It's best if babies don't have to be moved from one home to another once they're placed, but if the legal reality is that a placement can't be finalized until X time for Y reason, then the prospective adoptive parents have to accept the risks inherent if they opt to take the baby home before s/he is legally available for adoption. The other option is to keep such babies in foster care until all legal questions are settled - same deal for the baby, I guess, but not for the prospective adoptive parents.

In this case, it sounds like the matter was clear: Placement with the Larsons wasn't consistent with ICWA, and the adoption couldn't be finalized without the boy's tribe's permission. This isn't a case of "giving back" a baby who's been legally adopted -- this is a placement that's been disrupted due to what should have been plainly predictable legal factors. If the agency handling the adoption didn't adequately educate the Larsons about ICWA and explain the risk they were taking by agreeing to essentially foster a Native American infant they hoped to adopt, then I blame the agency. If the Larsons knew the risk they were taking and understood that the boy's tribe had final say in the adoption, then I don't see the need to cry foul. I'm sorry they don't get to adopt this child I'm sure they've come to love, but he wasn't "theirs" yet and they shouldn't have been encouraged to think of him that way.

Lula, that totally makes sense. I've been reading up on tribal law as it pertains to adoption. Basically, these are the steps that must be gone through before a child can be placed outside the tribe:

1) Native bio-family (including distant relatives)

2) Native, same tribe, non-biofamily

3) Native, different tribe, non-biofamily

4) Non-native

I can only imagine the pressure put upon the tribe to raise the child no matter what the child's life would be like.

I know it seems hard, but to go all Spock on you, the rights of the many always outweigh the rights of the few (or the one).

As a woman with a very 'diluted' Cherokee heritage, I can appreciate the desire to preserve what's left of a tribal line. I am proud of my heritage-even if my tracings take me far back into generations to find it. HOWEVER, as a good mother, who has always done what's right for my kids (and this includes staying healthy during pregnancy and beyond to ensure their health), this is totally and completely ridiculous. This couple stepped in and provided a safe, healthy and loving home for this child-who obviously meant nothing to the woman who created him, as she chose drugs over him and his 4 siblings. To me, this tribe sounds racist. If this couple had even a drop of NA blood in either of them, the tribe would have let the baby be? This does not portray the tribe (or Native's in general) in a very good light.

Seriously, this couple did not come into the tribe's home in the middle of the night and abduct this baby, they adopted him and took care of him when noone else would! Once again, the American "system" prevails? I don't think so. How outrageous!

I just watched this on the news and was shocked.  This is racism how could this possibly be legal? The fact that this child is not only Native American but also Mexican and White i just don't see how they were able to take this child.  The birth parents were unfit and this child was in a loving home how dare they break that bond because the child is PART Native American.  This needs to be put to a stop and this child should be returned to his adopted parents!!!

Someone on Shannon's response thread stated it very nicely: "Native American" isn't only a racial/ethnic designation in the US. It's also a legal status, since tribes are sovereign and tribal affiliation accords an individual a sort of dual citizenship. Since ICWA was implemented in the 1970s, adoption of Native American children has become similiar to adopting from any other country outside the U.S. Yes, American Indian nations and citizens are also part of the United States (unlike China and Ethhiopia), but individual nations still get to determine who qualifies for tribal membership and who gets to adopt Native American children. The same situation now exists in Australia, for Aboriginal communities and their members.

This child fell under ICWA jurisdiction because of his legal status as a tribal member through his mother's tribal status. Not every child with Native American ancestry is subject to ICWA - but because the law is complicated and finalized adoptions can be disputed if ICWA isn't properly followed during the process, *any* situation where a child of partial Native American heritage is being presented for adoption must be carefully handled by adoption professionals who are adequately knowledgeable of this law.

Saddened in Ohio - people like you (and me, and my spouse) my have a racial/ethnic tie to a tribe, but we do not have the legal ties unless we qualify for tribal membership and are enrolled. My husband, for example, qualifies for tribal membership, but no one in his family has been enrolled for at least two generations. Despite his qualification for enrollment, he and I do not qualify as an ICWA-approved family - placing a Native American child with us on the basis of blood quota isn't consistent with the spirit of the law, and therefore we aren't regarded by any nation as being legally and culturally appropriate for raising a Native American child even if the child's mother wants to place her/him with us. A child's parents don't get sole decision-making power under ICWA - the tribe has to give permission too.

This is just the way it is under the law, which was needed in order to prevent further generations of disruption and cultural genocide. It may appear very flawed to many of us, but if we acknowledge the right of other sovereign nations to set parameters for adoption of their citizens, we have to see how the same rights apply here in the U.S. for Native American nations.

Being native myself, I have often struggled with the practical applications of ICWA, especially in cases such as this.  But, I understand why ICWA became necessary.  

Not so long ago, many native families lost their newborns to deceptive adoption practices.  In one extreme case, I heard from one elderly Navajo woman exemplifies the reason why ICWA is in place.  Back in the 1960s, she gave birth to a set of twins and she already had many more children.  At birth, the doctors and nurses where she delivered told her that her baby died at birth.  Later, to find out that this child came searching his Navajo roots.  This Navajo woman is "uneducated" by Western standards.  She, at least, got to meet her son, who by the time he came searching in the 1990s knew very little about his Navajo heritage.  Certainly, he probably would not have had the advantages that the Western upbringing afforded him, he missed out on what he could have had with his family, and he was robbed, as were his parents.  

Having lived off the reservation for awhile now, I am disturbed by the Western’s view of the native communities.  Just because there is lack of indoor plumbing and electricity and unemployment is rampant, the reservation is deemed unfit for rearing children by the outside world.  When in reality, there is richness there in our cultures -- what has survived of our cultures.  In many native cultures, the extended family normally steps in to help rear children.  As the saying goes, "it takes a clan, community if you will, to raise a child."  In Western thought, the family would be considered codependent, etc, etc... That is not how extended family members in native communities look at it.  They step up to help raise their child.

Though I feel bad for the Larsons, I do not agree that this is a racist act towards them.  And certainly, I feel bad for little Talon, as he gets yanked from a comfortable and loving environment.  It is sad.  But, who is to say with unwavering certainty that Talon will have such a horrible life because he is returned to his native family.  

But, who is to say with unwavering certainty that Talon will have such a horrible life because he is returned to his native family.

Believe me, the life will be horrible...the family is fragmented, and there are more than four other siblings, some others have already been adopted.  The baby should have stayed with the Larsons.

Maukwa, none of us has any idea what this child's life will be like now that he's been removed from the Larsons, so there's no reason to be all doom and gloom about it. Likewise, none of us has any idea if he would have had the lovely wholesome upbringing everyone seems to be picturing if he stayed with the Larsons. All we know about the Larsons is that they are white married couple, have the means to adopt, and fought a legal battle to adopt this particular baby despite the fact that the agency they used was either deplorably ignorant of ICWA or deplorably willing to ignore it and hope that no one noticed. Maybe that's why the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe decided against the Larsons - not so much because they are white, but because they were willing to act in bad faith against ICWA or willing to give their money to an agency that was working in bad faith.

If some of the child's other siblings have been adopted, it's quite possible that Talon will be adopted by those same families or otherwise end up with a great future in a family that his tribe approves. Yes, it's sad that the Larsons didn't get to adopt him, but do we really want illegal and/or unethical adoptions to go through simply because a baby is placed with a couple for six months? Children adopted from Guatemala have often been fostered for longer than that, and I don't hear many folks lamenting the broken bond with their foster parents in order to come to the U.S. to be adopted at 6, 9, 12, or 18 months by Americans.

Sorry - meant to thank msa for her/his contribution. Good to hear an "inside opinion" on the matter.

Lula - all you points are very valid, to the point, and correct.  As with many news stories, it is always interesting the information that is left out (be it for convenience or as an honest oversight).  This is not about race it's about law and procedure.  

Whether a person agrees with it or not, ICWA has been in place for many years and should have been followed.  It is seems pretty clear that in this case ICWA was not followed or all this 'mess' would have been avoided.

All-in-all this story has been slanted by the media.  There are key bits of information that are missing.  Namely, was this adoption even legally finalized?

Point well made about Guatemala and their adoption process.  

I think it should also be noted the the foster care system is NOT this evil system.  Shame on you who make the foster care system out to be this horrible thing.  People who choose to be foster parents go through a selection process which includes background checks and more education on children than the majority of birth parents seek.  These are loving homes and God bless those who open their homes and hearts to foster children.

Utah adoption law states that a child must be living in the prospective adoptive parents' home for a minimum of six months before the adoption can be finalized. In other states finalization can take up to a year or more, so Utah's on the fast track if adoptions are actually *finalized* at six months - can't tell from what I'm reading if that is true, or if six months' residence with the PAPs is some minimum point after which finalization takes place.

At any rate, this adoption was in dispute for months before we heard about it through the media - as it should have been, since it was proceeding illegally. It certainly wasn't finalized, i.e. Talon was never legally "the Larson's adopted son", because placement isn't the same as actual adoption. The Larsons also could have allowed this baby to be taken into tribal care months ago when the whole ICWA violation came to light, and he could have been placed into an ICWA-compliant adoptive or foster family and bonded with them by now. They chose to fight a law that was designed specifically to prevent this very situation (Native American children being adopted out without tribal consent), and they lost. They were certainly not wronged here - if anything, they made the situation worse for this child they profess to love, who could have been in a stable home by now. Maybe even with his siblings!

I am Native American and the Indian Child Welfare Act is for tribes NOT children. I am enrolled in the tribe that is taking our son away 2 days after Christmas.  I believe this act should be changed to protect children.  

Our son is going to live somewhere he doesn't know after

spending half of his life with us.  I don't believe the best interest of the child is being taken into consideration in either case.

If the child isn't Indian enough to be considered part of the tribe if he applied to be a member as an adult then he shouldn't be considered Indian enough to remove from the adoptive home.  

According to this document, he *is* "Indian enough" to qualify for tribal membership if he wanted to enroll as an adult. He has at least one enrolled parent, and is at least 25% Ojibwe.

www.llojibwe.com/.../Enrollment_App.pdf

Whatever problems may exist with how the Indian Child Welfare Act is carried out, this was still an illegal adoption in process. The move to halt the adoption on legal grounds apparently began less than a week after the child's birth. The whole situation could have been avoided if the agency had done their job properly from the beginning.

Ooops - it's his mother who is at least 25% Ojibwe. I don't know the child's percentage, so I'll assume the Leech Lake Band knows their business and therefore knows why ICWA applies in his case.

Lula,

As a ICWA practitioner (ICW caseworker, manager, and Tribal ICW Director) and Native Splitfeather (adoptee) with over 30 years of experience I want to thank you for your words and support for the work of protecting Native American children. You are very correct in your assertion that it was the adoption agency that left Talon in peril and forced him to suffer an unnecessary emotional trauma.  It is also evident that the State of Utah failed this child in not enforcing the Federal regulations required of States who license adoption agencies. I am hopeful that adequate exposure with the media will "embarrass" enough Utah child welfare officials that they will get off their butts and prevent another child from this same outcome. I will be leaning on my resources including the National Indian Child Welfare Association to keep the heat on until we can have reasonable assurances that all adoption agencies in Utah are in compliance with State and Federal laws.. all laws, including the ICWA!!! Too often I hear of and have to deal with the outcomes of failed adoptions involving Native children who were not identified as Native until long after the ink was dryed on the adoption papers, the legal processes have all ended and these young people find themselves locked in a life where they are confused, angry, lost and unable to relate to their "adopted" world.  Their loving adoptive parents do what they can but are not prepared to deal with them and become frustrated when they can't seem to "connect".  These youngsters turn to alcohol and drugs to ease their pain from "something" going on they do not understand. We have many of these stories in our federal prisons. It is important to remember two things in this story. The first is that Talon will only be a child for a short period of his life, He will be Ojibwe is whole life.. The Larson's cannot teach Talon how to be Ojibwe, how to understand life from a Ojibwe perspective. Talon cannot learn how to be Ojibwe with a few visits to the reservation or through books and videos or how by listening, watching, smelling, and touching his culture and history can protect him from those "elements" in life that could hurt him sometime later in his life. In this it is important to also consider that most probably his Ojibwe bio mother was suffering from unresolved cultural self hate in her decision to offer her son to an non-Native adoption agency, and a non-Native family. The second thing to remember is the evidence that show every indication that Talon made a successful bond with the Larson's.  This is strong evidence that Talon can make successful bonds with loving adults. I am sure that the Larson's will find a child that they can successfully adopt. I am also quite sure that the Tribal ICW program is working with a great degree of concern to assure that Talon be placed with a bio-family member or another Tribal member as soon as possible.  As an Native adoptee who was adopted prior to the 1978 ICWA I can tell you that despite "finding my way back home" not knowing who my Native bio mother was or is, or her people is an "emptiness" that no one should have to endure. I will continue to work hard to assure that all Native children are given a chance to "grow up Indian"

Before railing about the ICWA, please consider why the act was passed in the first place.  Before 1978, more than 25% of Native American children were removed from their families and given away to white families.  Social workers looked down on perfectly legitimate cultural practices like communal parenting and would use these cultural practices as "evidence" of abuse or neglect in order to steal the babies and give them to white families.  Congress gave tribes control over adoption of their tribal members because the states were doing such a horrible job of it.

Using drugs while pregnant is a genuine and legitimate welfare concern (unlike many that were used to take Native American children away).  But the tribe has a right to determine what is in the best interests of the child before the state of Utah does.  Period.

Please educate yourself before you start disparaging tribal courts and tribal court decisions and assuming that state courts should just be better in all cases.  That, to me, smacks more of racism than the idea that Indian tribes should be allowed to have a say in what happens to their members.

Stephen- Thanks for the good words. Equally concerning are the statements made by CNN anchor Campbell Brown when she commented "if there is concern in the Native American community that children are being lost to the Tribe through adoption because of unfit parents, then focus on strengthening your families so that your children won't be parentless".... How arrogant and spiteful is this!!!??? What an incredibly ignorant remark.. it unfortunately represents what many non-Native people think of Tribes and Indian people. Many non-Indian people are surprised to find out that most Tribes in American operate highly complex and effective child welfare programs, with professional services aimed at prevention, intervention, treatment and support for both parents and children who may experience situations in their life where "problems" and situations arise that created periods of "unfitness".  In many of these cases the services result in positive outcomes and children either remain in their homes or are returned quickly. In those other unfortunate situations where the bio-parents are not capable of making appropriate progress, most Tribal ICW programs locate Tribal placement resources where the child (ren) can be safe, have continued contact with relatives and their culture, obtain treatment services, have supervised contact with their parents if Court approved, and life can be as "normal" as possible.  Further, if a permanent placement is necessary, in MOST cases the Tribe will choose NOT to terminate parental rights and will rather place their children in legal guardianships.  This placement option preserves the "spiritual" and traditional bond of birth and relationship between the bio-parents and their children. As I earlier stated, our children will only be children for a short period of time, in most cases they are going to have a continued relationship with their bio-parents. Tribes have a highly integrated systems of "protection" and transparency. As Native people we live in very intimate and connected Tribal communities where "everybody knows everybody" and there is tremendous opportunity for "forgiveness". Unlike some non-Indian beliefs, it is not necessary in Indian country to "shame" someone "for life" for being an "unfit" parent. There is an understanding and acceptance that Tribal children who are not raised by there bio-parents are "everyone" responsibility.  This attitude provides for a "blanket" of protection that cannot be replicated in many if not most non-native communities. What is ironic in all of this is that Tribal ICW practices are recognized by MOST non-Indian child welfare experts as MODEL practices and programs, and when ever possible state child welfare administrators across this nation are replicating these "best practice" principles, case management systems, and processes. If Campbell Brown had done her homework she would have found that despite having extremely limited funding and resources, most Tribal ICW programs success rate of keeping Tribal children from the "ills" of adoption far surpass those of most state non-Indian programs!! We don't have time to "publish" our results, and certainly we don't feel it necessary to "gloat" over the obvious success, cuz we are too busy working on doing what Campbell Brown says we "need" to do, and that is preventing our children from needing to be in any other family or placement. Campbell Brown should remember that it was not that long ago prior to the euro-invasion, and the inflection of years of cultural genocide, Tribal people did not on the most part have to deal with the issues of "unfit" parents. Hopefully we can count of Campbell Brown to prepare a letter of support the next time Congress addresses federal funding to support Tribes in their effort to support Tribal families!!!!

I so agree with you Eddie B

Thanks, EddieB, for your words - especially your descriptions of Native community child-welfare practices. My husband wanted to comment on that aspect of the debate, but felt he didn't have sufficient exposure to ICW to do so. What little I know of them (specific to MN) has left me very impressed and wondering why state and federal policymakers don't look to them as best-practice models, just like you point out. Certainly we need large-scale systematic Child Welfare reform in this country, and I for one believe ICW models would be an excellent place to start.

Thanks for all the work you're doing on behalf of children, to make things better for them than they were for you when you were a child yourself. I'll be thinking on you this week.