Indian Child Welfare Act Case Study

Due to the alarmingly high rate of Indian children being removed from their homes, the Indian Child Welfare Act was created in 1978; this came as a result of a widespread belief that their child-rearing practices were considered neglectful in comparison to white families (Krager & Stoesz, 2010; Palmiste, 2011). Indian children removed from their tribal groups and families were placed in the child welfare system, which included adoptions and foster care, or they were sent to boarding schools (Palmsite, 2011). Early American history was plagued with discrimination and racism towards groups that were thought of as inferior, some of which were Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Mexican Americans. The culture and values of the American Indians were disregarded and viewed as inferior and they were regarded as subordinate. White supremacy has always been dominant and their values were inflicted onto the indigenous groups and minority groups of people. Ethnocentrism, a belief that one culture is superior, has been prevalent since the colonization of the United States of America.

In the past year and a half with events like DPAL, Native American rights along with the rights of other minority groups in the United States haven’t been shown the same rights as Caucasians when it comes to civil liberty issues. In 1978 Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Under the ICWA tribes have significant input on whether the removal of children from them is necessary, “efforts must be made to support and rehabilitate a family before its child is placed into foster care or adopted.” (Ryznar, 2013). The ICWA also was enacted to examine how it “establishes standards for state-court child custody proceedings involving Indian children… “the consequences…of abusive child welfare practices that [separated] Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.” (Cornell University Law School). In 2009, a couple from South Carolina, Melanie and Matthew Capobianco, wanted to adopt a baby whose father (Dusten Brown) was an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation and mother Christina Maldonado of Hispanic background. Due to Brown being a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, and under the ICWA, a child that

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978, was enacted by Congress with a goal of protecting Native American children while preserving the family unit (Turner, 2016). The ICWA created a guideline for the removal of Indian children and established a set of requirements for child welfare systems to abide by (Bussey, 2013). In accordance to the ICWA, child welfare agencies must follow the guidelines first by verifying if a child is enrolled with a tribe or suspected to be eligible for enrollment (ICWA, 1978). In addition, the act acknowledges federally recognized tribes as having sovereignty in making decisions about the welfare of Indian children who are members of their tribe (Matheson, 1996).

The Indian Child Welfare Act was able to give faith and happiness to many Indian families as well to those children taken away from their families. Celebration and overall the feeling of the Indian children coming home to their own culture took place worldwide in the United States. On the other hand, not everything was perfect after the ICWA was passed consequences with the policy started to affect American Indian families in many states such as South Dakota. As stated in the video Hearts On The Ground: Bring Lakota Children Home, the policy ICWA is violated in South Dakota still today the Department of Social Services removes hundreds of Indian children from their families. Families in South Dakota are devastated and frustrated with the government

Three variables—extended foster care policy, state administrative structure, and community context of child welfare agency responsible for delivering CFCILS—were included to test whether child welfare macro-level factors predict CFILS utilization. Since 2010, states have had the option of extending foster care up to age 21 (see Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, P.L. 110-351). The GAO (2014) specified that 19 states had extended foster care up to age 21 by the end 2011 when NYTD Services data were collected. Thus, a dichotomous variable indicating whether a state extended foster care (0 = no; 1 = yes) was included to test whether extending foster care results in differences in CFILS utilization before youth

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), Pub L 95-608; 25 USC 1901-1963, is a federal law that protects Indians children from unwarranted removal of their tribes (USC 1901-1963). This federal law was in response to the high number of Indian children being removed from their tribal homes by social services and placed in non-tribal homes. Despite this federal mandate, many states and local counties continue to struggle in complying with the regulations of ICWA. Historically, in comparison to the general population, a very high percentage of Indian children have been removed unwarranted and a very high percent of such Indian children have been placed in non-Indian foster (National Indian Welfare Association, n.d). For example, a 1976

In this article, “Doing What’s Best for the Tribe”, author Marcia Zug, an associateof law at the University of South Carolina. Describes a court case that involves a Cherokee Nation father and a non-indian mother. Few months into the the mother's pregnancy, she began to look into adoption. The mother soon found a non- indian family and decided to go through with the adoption without the father knowing. The father had no information until after baby Veronica was four months old. Dustin Bowen, the father was determined to fight for his daughter. After two years in the South Carolina Supreme Court finally made their ruling. On July 26, baby Veronica was reunited with her

In 2005 the government attempted a survey with all states. Of the 50 states contacted using a web based survey, only five states—Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. The survey identified an oversight as a theme/pattern and as a major concern in the implementation of ICWA. The GAO (2005) stated “ICWA did not give any federal agency direct oversight responsibility for states’ implementation of the law” (p.4). This speaks that states are struggling in the implementation and overseeing that ICWA is being applied to Indian children (GAO,

I can use this to argue the efforts of the federal government to improve the lives of American Natives. However this efforts are not enough and they will have to continue to work to reduce these issues. In this article, the author approaches her points by utilizing interviews with women of the reservations that were abused and interviews with authorities and representants of the Native community. Therefore I consider this article as a primary

In the US, African American and American Indian children are overrepresented in the child welfare system. There is a lack of cultural competence which can lead to inaccurate assessments (Velazquez, 2011). If biological families need to stay together and child welfare should make this a priority than perhaps the US isn’t the best at modeling this behavior. According to Gilbert(2011) in the 1990’s policy seemed less concerned with birth families and more about children’s opportunities to live in new families created through adoption” (p.24). This appears to work against the parents working to regain custody because the system demonstrates an interest in looking to place children opposed to working with families towards reunification.

ICWA was enacted in 1978 because of the extremely high rate of Indian children being removed from their traditional homes and premanently from Indian culture . Before the enactment, it was estimated that 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children were removed from their Indian homes and placed in non-Indian homes, with an absence from their Indian culture. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) paid the states to remove Indian children and to place them with non-Indian families and religious groups. Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs showed that in some cases, the per capita rate of Indian children in foster care was nearly 16 times higher than the rate for non-Indians. If Indian children had continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. It also damaged the emotional lives of many children, as adults having been through the process testified. Congress recognized this, and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as the best interests of the child. One of the factors in this judgment was that, because of the differences in culture, what was in the best interest of a non-Indian child was not necessarily what was in the best interest of an Indian child, especially as they have traditionally larger extended families and tribal relationships in their culture ( Indian Child Welfare Act, 1978).

The image of an American family changed dramatically over the last fifty years. American families are no longer modeled after the Cleavers. International adoption has contributed to this changing family view, bringing in children who are not biologically related to their parents and often of a different race. This new American image has helped to reduce race related issues. Children are the future of a country. If a country is losing their children to international adoption; the county is losing the gifts and talents that are irreplaceable in those children. Intercountry adoption should not be a viable adoption source because this process does not adequately benefit those involved, international adoption exploits poor children and hurts their countries of origin.

There was a court case, Baby Girl v. Adoptive Couple, in which a child who was partially Cherokee Indian, because of her father, and Hispanic, because of her mother. The adoption of Baby Girl was a difficult one due to the fact that she has an ancestry of Cherokee Indian. Therefore, under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the adoption of Baby Girl seemed impossible because Biological Father had the right to have custody of his child, Baby Girl, if he chose to. So, the court greatly sees that by giving Baby Girl back to Biological Father would be in the child’s best interest under the ICWA, because there is the assumption that if she is with her Biological Father and her culture, she will not suffer any type of emotional distress. For

The ICAR5 is the première international child welfare and adoption conference. Presenting my three papers at ICAR allows for the dissemination of my scholarship to an international audience of scholars and offer peer/expert feedback on my work. As a junior scholar in academe, participating in ICAR5 also increases my profile among the international community of scholars and provides opportunities to grow my academic network. Attending keynote addresses, presentations, and poster sessions will increase my knowledge of international child welfare research and hone my presentation skills by observing how other collegues present their work. Finally, this conference aligns with the College’s goal of seeking to increase faculty scholarship internationally

This source fits into my research becasue it explains the cons and pros of child welfare and how it may affect some adolescents growing up.There have been many discussion and concerns of the rising numbers of minorites being maltreated and being placed into foster care, and how some parents argue that they are being removed from their families to be put into a group home or another caregiver and whether that changes their identity or background. Mark E. Courtney uses an states that "Indian children were being removed from their tribes and placed into non-Indian settings and that there was a conncern that these children were losing a sense of their culture and that the court did not take into consideration tribal relations."