Voting for Welfare of Russian children while turning backs on U.S. Children?

by Elizabeth Sharon Morris Late Tuesday night, January 1st, 2013, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. Res. 628, expressing disappointment over the Russian law banning adoption of children by American citizens.

Senator Inhofe, one of the two Senate Co-chairs of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, and a wonderful supporter of children and families, rightly stated, “It is extremely unfortunate and disheartening that the Russian Duma and President Putin would choose to deprive the children, the very children that they are entrusted to care for, the ability to find a safe and caring family that every child deserves…It is nothing more than a political play…that ultimately leads to greater hardships and more suffering for Russian children who will now be denied a loving family.”

In addition, earlier this month, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Members sent a bi-partisan letter to President Putin urging him to veto the legislation, stating,

“We fear that this overly broad law would have dire consequences for Russian children...Nothing is more important to the future of our world than doing our best to give as many children the chance to grow up in a family as we possibly can.”

The vote in support of Russian children was unanimous by the Senate. The CCA, Senator Inhofe and many others are correctly speaking up for these children and families. Many in the CCA are also correctly concerned – for the very same reasons - about children of native heritage here in the United States. However, while ALL the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs members voted for this resolution preventing adoption of Russian children - several members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs continue to uphold similar 'Putin-like' legislation preventing adoption of American children. Take the statements above and replace the word “Russian” with the word “Indian” and it fits our argument against the Indian Child Welfare Act exactly. Further - speaking as the birth mother of several enrollable children - I need to stress that while the argument against ICWA is important for adoption, it is also important to many birth families who don’t wish to have tribal jurisdiction and control over their own children. Children who had never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs, some with extremely minimal blood quantum - as well as some with maximum quantum - have been removed from homes they know and love and placed with strangers chosen by social services. Facts to note: 75% of U.S citizens with tribal heritage live OFF the reservation. This includes many of 100% heritage who choose not to be involved with the reservation system. Some have moved away purposely because many reservations are not safe places to raise children. Others have never lived on a reservation. MOST enrollable citizens have less than 50% tribal heritage and are connected to their non-native relatives, some not having been connected to the reservation system for a couple generations. Although it has been felt that the Indian Child Welfare Act has safeguards to prevent misuse, stories affecting multi-racial families abound across America. Letters from tribal and non-tribal birth parents, extended family, foster parents and pre-adoptive families can be read at http://caicw.org/family-advocacy/letters-from-families-2/ In the words of Dr. William B. Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

“... We are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…"

Consider calling your Senators, and while thanking them for voting for S. Res. 628, ask them to support the rights of children and families of Native American heritage as well.  

FIND YOUR SENATOR'S CONTACT INFO

 .

Fighting ICWA? Petition~Draft Legislation~MissionFish~FaceBook!

.
The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW) is an advocate for children and families hurt by the Indian Child Welfare Act, an example of misguided federal Indian policy.

There are Four things you can do today to help:


First, if you haven't already, sign the petition on CAICW's Cause page.  http://www.causes.com/causes/537834 

CAICW will be taking it with to DC in January, and it will help show Congressmen that this is an important issue to many!


Second, donate through MissionFish whenever you use Ebay.  The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare is Registered with MissionFish - a service through Ebay that helps nonprofits fundraise while buying and selling on ~ eBay.  Sellers can give part of their proceeds to a favorite nonprofit, and nonprofits can raise funds by selling on eBay too. Direct donations from eBay users can also be given through a 'Donate Now' feature, which lets anyone with a PayPal account donate right away without buying or selling anything.
http://donations.ebay.com/charity/charity.jsp?NP_ID=39005


Third, CAICW is sending out a snail mail newsletter this week. It includes anonymous excerpts from four letters families have written, information about the DC trip, a paper copy of the petition for you to share with non-internet friends, and potential draft legislation to share with your newly elected state legislators. If you would like a copy, please contact CAICW with your snail address. writeus@caicw.org

Fourth, Look for Draft legislation that you can bring to your State Legislator for the next session on the CAICW website: caicw.org ~ and bring it to them!  Hurry; they are putting together their plans for legislation right now!

Finally - for more information and to connect with other families who are struggling against ICWA, visit the CAICW FaceBook ‘Page:’  http://facebook.com/fbCAICW.org  


Thank you so much for your support! God Bless you!
.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three

.
7. Finally, if tribal membership is a political rather than racial designation, (as argued) than is it constitutional for the definition of an Indian child to include "enrollable" children, rather than "enrolled" children?

25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions: (4) ''Indian child'' means any unmarried
person who is under age eighteen and is either:
(1) member of an Indian tribe or
(2) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of
a member of an Indian tribe;

However;

a) Tribal governments have been given the right as sovereign entities to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights.

b) ICWA does not give Indian children or their legal guardians the choice whether to accept political membership in the tribe. Legal guardians have the right to make that choice for their children, not governments. (ftn11)

c) Non-member relatives are being told that these children are now members of an entity that the family has had no past political, social or cultural relationship with.

d) So IS it then the blood relationship that determines membership? Bridget R., (ftn6) stated, "If tribal determinations are indeed conclusive for purposes of applying ICWA, and if, ... a particular tribe recognizes as members all persons who are biologically descended from historic tribal members, then children who are related by blood to such a tribe may be claimed by the tribe, and thus made subject to the provisions of ICWA, solely on the basis of their biological heritage. Only children who are racially Indians face this possibility." Isn’t that then an unconstitutional race-based classification?

e) Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what the State would normally determine to be an unfit home on the basis of tribal government claims that European values don’t apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (ftn5)

f) Even with significant relationship with Indian tribal culture, forced application of ICWA runs afoul of the Constitution in three ways: (1) it impermissibly intrudes upon a power ordinarily reserved to the states, (2) it improperly interferes with Indian children's fundamental due process rights; and (3) on the sole basis of race, it deprives them of equal opportunities to be adopted that are available to non-Indian children.

PLEASE PRESS YOUR LEGISLATORS TO CHANGE ICWA LAW

.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Two

.
4. United States citizens, no matter their heritage, have a right to fair trials.

a) When summoned to a tribal court, parents and legal guardians, whether enrolled or not, have to be told their rights, including 25 USC Chapter 21 § 1911. (b)
"Transfer of proceedings [to tribal jurisdiction] ...in the absence of good cause to the contrary, [and] objection by either parent..." (ftn5)
b) The rights of non-member parents must be upheld: for example; 25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions "Permanent Placement" (1) (iv) "shall not include a placement based ... upon an award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody to one of the parents. (ftn5)
c) Non-members have to be able to serve county and state summons to tribal members within reservation boundaries and must have access to appeal. (ftn5)

5. Adoptive Parents need well defined protections. These are the citizens among us that have been willing to set aside personal comforts and take in society's neediest children. Adoptive parents take many risks in doing this, the least of which is finances. People build their lives around family. Adoptive parents risk not only their own hearts, but the hearts of any birth children they have as well as the hearts of their extended family. These parents have an investment in the families they are building and have a right to know that they can put their names on the adoption paper with confidence. If we, as a society, continue to abuse these parents, we will find fewer people willing to take the risk of adoption and more and more children will languish in foster homes.

6. A "Qualified expert witness" should be someone who is able to advocate for the well being of the child, first and foremost: a professional person who has substantial education and experience in the area of the professional person's specialty and significant knowledge of and experience with the child, his family, and the culture, family structure, and child-rearing practices the child has been raised in.

Last Part coming...
.

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes!

Protecting children and the families they love...

1. Children of tribal heritage should be guaranteed protection equal to that of any other child in the United States. (ftn4) (ftn5)

a) Children should never be moved suddenly from a home that is safe, loved, and where they are emotionally, socially and physically comfortable simply because their care-givers are not of a certain heritage. The best interest of the child should be considered first, above the needs of the tribal community.
b) State health and welfare requirements for foster and adoptive children should apply equally to all. If there is proven evidence of emotional and/or physical neglect, the state has an obligation to that child's welfare and should be held accountable if the child is knowingly or by Social Service neglect left in unsafe conditions. (ftn5 - Title 42 U.S.C 1983)

2. Fit parents, no matter their heritage, have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage and superseding wishes of tribal government. US Supreme Court decisions upholding family autonomy under 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection include Meyer vs. Nebraska (ftn8), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (ftn9), and Brown v. Board of Education (ftn10).

3. The "Existing Indian Family Doctrine" must be available to families and children that choose not to live within the reservation system.

a) In re Santos Y, (ftn5) the court found "Application of the ICWA to a child whose only connection with an Indian tribe is a one-quarter genetic contribution does not serve the purpose for which the ICWA was enacted..." Santos y quoted from Bridget R.'s due process and equal protection analysis at length. Santos also states, Congress considered amending the ICWA to preclude application of the "existing Indian family
doctrine" but did not do so."
b) In Bridget R., (ftn6) the court stated, "if the Act applies to children whose families have no significant relationship with Indian tribal culture, such application runs afoul of the Constitution in three ways:

- it impermissibly intrudes upon a power ordinarily reserved to the states,

- it improperly interferes with Indian children's fundamental due process rights respecting family relationships; and

- on the sole basis of race, it deprives them of equal opportunities to be adopted that are available to non-Indian children and exposes them...to having an existing non-Indian family torn apart through an after the fact assertion of tribal and Indian-parent rights under ICWA".

c) In re Alexandria Y. (ftn7), the court held that "recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA" and held that the trial court had acted properly in refusing to apply ICWA "because neither [child] nor [mother] had any significant social, cultural, or political relationship with Indian life; thus, there was no existing Indian family to preserve." Question: If current ICWA case law includes many situations where existing Family Doctrine has already been ignored, then have serious constitutional flaws already
occurred?

More to come...

.