Indian Child Welfare Act Of 1978

From the 1870’s until the last school closed in 1996, at least 150,000 Indigenous children attended residential schools in Canada. More than 130 government mandated schools existed across the country. These schools were church administered, with the express purpose of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their native culture, in an effort to assimilate them into Euro-Canadian culture and thereby “kill the Indian in the child”. Countless families were torn apart as the Canadian government placed

Native Americans have been neglected, abused, and tormented since the 1700’s when their land was abruptly invaded by Europeans. Europeans declared this “unknown” territory to be their property from then forward and did anything and everything to make sure this would happen. This included forced assimilation, where Natives were stripped of their cultural traditions and forced to assimilate to an english speaking, westernized culture (McLeigh, 2010). This included taking children from their families and sending them to boarding school to learn a new language, new cultural traditions, and new religious practices. Starting in 1860 and lasting until 1970, children were taken from their families at a young age and often lost touch with their family

By 1940, Native Americans had experienced many changes and counter-changes in their legal status in the United States. Over the course of the nineteenth century, most tribes lost part or all of their ancestral lands and were forced to live on reservations. Following the American Civil War, the federal government abrogated most of the tribes’ remaining sovereignty and required communal lands to be allotted to individuals. The twentieth century also saw great changes for Native Americans, such as the Citizenship Act and the Indian New Deal. Alison R. Bernstein examines how the Second World War affected the status and lives of Native Americans in American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Bernstein argues

According to the Indian Act (1876), we determined someone’s status by one’s parentage of blood quantum to know how much Indian were they? A First Nations woman, who married with white man, lost her entitlements as Indian, so did her children. However, regardless of race or ethnicity, if another raced woman married a First Nations man, she gained “status” under the terms of the Indian Act. I feel that was completely unfair, and obviously discriminatory, that horrific situation continued until 1985.

Knockwood explains the enforcement of residential ideologies as a “combination of physical intimidation and psychological manipulation which produced terror and confusion” (12). The premise of residential schools was to strip Indigenous children from their culture and Indigenous identity, forcing them to only speak English, or face severe consequences. Despite the government and churches best efforts, many Indigenous children still maintained their cultural roots and kept their language while at home. This governmental need for assimilation has had lasting impacts far beyond the scope of active residential schools. Neeganagwedgin notes, “while the schools may be physically closed, the legacy lingers” (34). Beyond this, she urges, present-day institutions still function in a way that continues to undermine and systematically deny, “Indigenous peoples their inherent rights as First Peoples” (Neeganagwedgin 34); such as the justice system, child welfare and the education systems.

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

Adoptive couple v. Baby Girl was a case that involved the biological parents of the baby girl in question. The biological mother Christy was Hispanic-Caucasian and, the father Mr. Brown, a member of a Cherokee Indian tribe. Congress had to step in due to the “ICWA” or the Indian Child Welfare Act that was passed in 1978 to prevent the illegal and harsh removal of Indian children from the tribes. This case was a huge battle in the Supreme Court between the biological father Dusten Brown and the adoptive parents of baby Veronica in September of 2011. This case caused uproar with people on both sides of the fence.

The boundary of the Yakama Nation Reservation is considered home to different culturally diverse populations. Parenting skills and teaching can vary dramatically from each of those unique households. The diverse populations come with varying levels of what is considered appropriate child rearing practices. “Child abuse intakes are increasing due to families from Mexico coming here to the US and the standards are different” (Ruiz, 2015). Pilar Ruiz is a Social Worker at Children’s Administration assigned to the Child Protective Services. Families migrate to the area and they carry different perspectives on parenting and may not understand the expectations of Washington State and Child Abuse Laws. It is not only migrant families that need additional support. Families that have been here for many years have traditional practices that may cross the line when it comes to child abuse and neglect. These families that are located in this area need the additional support of increasing family bonds, healthy parenting, life skills, bonding, and reducing violence and substance abuse.

The Navajo Nation Division of Social Services (NDSS) intake form is used by three agencies under the NDSS umbrella for various services including child welfare for reservation residents, Indian Child Welfare for ICWA/state collaboration, local and off reservation adoption, as well as clinical treatment services. The intake form was developed in 2011 with the intent to gather and report Adoption, Foster Care, Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) data to the federal government and modified in 2015 to become more streamlined with NDSS’ electronic case management system. The latest revision incorporates various data elements needed to satisfy specific statistical requirements with NDSS’ various funding providers and grantees.

Unfamiliar with extended family child-rearing practices and communal values, government social service workers attempted to ‘rescue’ children from their Aboriginal families and communities, devastating children’s lives and furthering the destitution of many families. Culture and ethnicity were not taken into consideration as it was assumed that the child, being pliable, would take on the heritage and culture of the foster/adoptive parents (Armitage, 1995). The forced removal of children and youth from their Native communities has been linked with social problems such as “high suicide rate, sexual exploitation, substance use and abuse, poverty, low educational achievement and chronic unemployment” (Lavell-Harvard and Lavell, 2006, p.144). Newly designated funds from the federal to the provincial governments were “the primary catalysts for state involvement in the well-being of Aboriginal children…as Ottawa guaranteed payment for each child apprehended” (Lavell-Harvard and Lavell, 2006, p.145). Exporting Aboriginal children to the United States was common practice. Private American adoption agencies paid Canadian child welfare services $5,000 to $10,000 per child (LavellHarvard and Lavell, 2006). These agencies rarely went beyond confirming the applicant’s ability to pay, resulting in minimal screening and monitoring of foster or adoptive parents (Fournier and

The American Indian Policy Review Commission's report on the health of Native Americans said it best when they stated,"the federal responsibility to provide health services to Indians has its roots in the unique moral, historical, and treaty obligations of the federal government, no court has ever ruled on the precise nature of that legal basis nor defined the specific legal rights for Indians created by those obligations" (DeFine 1997 p.4). Thus, the Indian Health Service has always worked in strange and ambiguous ways.

However, Hamilton states, “Disenrollment weakens the People, individually and collectively. Former tribal members lose their identities, their culture, and their benefits. Sometimes they lose their jobs and their homes. They struggle to put food on the table,” thus giving insight to the detrimental effects of disenrollment (n.d.). He also goes to explain that more often than not, tribes that disenroll their members experience instability and a plethora of other problems that may last for many generations (Hamilton, n.d.). Hamilton continues with facts such as blood quantum and disenrollment not being among tribal traditions, as they spawn from the U.S. federal government; “I personally think blood quantum should play some role in determining who is an Indian . . .Disenrollment should only be executed in the most extreme cases” (n.d.). The Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP) lists other reasons against tribal disenrollment, “. . . tribal disenrollment leads to the loss of cultural identity and access to health care, education opportunity, job opportunity, and housing which are social determinants of health. . .” (Walker, 2015). Perhaps one of the most riveting effects of disenrollment would be the federal government no longer considering you an ‘Indian’ (Stretten, 2014). Following disenrollment, you would no longer be able to partake in any federal funds that are sent to the tribe, or receive any of the benefits that come with federal support (Stretten, 2014). Some of those benefits include education, law enforcement, and agriculture and range management (Stretten, 2014). Although disenrollment is not necessarily moral in all cases, it remains a part of the Native tribes’ culture and tradition

The second account of a changing stance toward children’s rights was evolution alongside women’s rights. Before this time, women and children were seen as unimportant under the law, whereas a father was given almost total control over all matters regarding his wife and children. If a father was violent or neglectful, society simply turned their shoulder to it. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, laws pertaining to the family system began to change. A new law recognized the equal rights of fathers and mothers with the mother’s rights reigning over the fathers in regards to the children. Also, the legal system began viewing children as important to the future of society, therefore “appropriate objects of the court’s

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

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).