.
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!
.
Showing posts with label state ICWA laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state ICWA laws. Show all posts
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids
.
But it's not always a slam-dunk...
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/80121_grandmom26.shtml
Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids
Friday, July 26, 2002By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Jewish grandmother will be allowed to continue raising her Native American grandchildren in her Tacoma home despite assertions from the mother that the children should be with her.
In a legal battle that balanced cultural protections for Indian families and tribes with the best interests of the children, the court ruled that transferring custody to the mother "would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children."
In 1992, Rebecca Johnston, an Alaskan Indian, and her boyfriend, Mark Mahaney, were living in Anchorage and both were struggling with the ravages of alcohol abuse, according to court documents. That March, they sent their two toddlers to live with their grandmother Erika Mahaney, also of Anchorage. The next year, they gave temporary legal custody to the grandmother, who moved with the youngsters to Tacoma.
The girl, now about 14, and the boy, about 12, have been living with their grandmother ever since and have been raised Jewish, attending Hebrew school and taking Yiddish lessons. The girl, according to court records, describes herself as being Jewish.
Over the years, Rebecca Johnston has made several attempts to regain custody of her children, asserting that she can give them a stable home environment.
An attempt to regain custody in 1994 failed when Erika Mahaney obtained, in Pierce County Superior Court, a temporary non-parental custody order.
Erika Mahaney told the court that the children suffered from "the effects of sexual abuse, domestic violence, general neglect and abandonment" while under their mother's care.
Johnston denied allegations that she used illegal drugs, and accusations from the girl that she sexually abused her. Johnston admits that she saw her younger brother sexually molest both children. In addition, she spent time behind bars after convictions for driving while intoxicated.
The children have been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and other behavioral disorders associated with sexual abuse.
The court ordered that it was in the best interest of the children for the grandmother to retain custody.
Johnston brought her custody battle to the state Court of Appeals in 1999, asserting that under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the Superior Court had not evaluated the evidence against her using the "clear and convincing standard" listed in federal Bureau of Indian Affairs guidelines.
And she said that under the law, an expert versed in Indian culture should have been involved in evaluating the evidence against her.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978 "to promote the security and stability of Indian tribes" while protecting the best interests of Indian children. The law gives a clear preference for keeping Indian children with their families and placing Indian children who must be removed from their homes within their own families or Indian tribes.
The appellate court agreed with the mother and overturned the trial court ruling. The grandmother then brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed Mahaney a victory by overturning the court of appeals ruling.
Saying that the guidelines of evaluating the evidence by a clear and convincing standard do not have the effect of law, the court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not replace the mandate of Washington state law requiring that the best interests of the child be paramount.
"Even where there is no showing of present parental unfitness ... the court may take into consideration emotional and psychological damage from prior unfitness. Moreover, in the case before us, the court is entitled to examine the lack of a bond to the parent and the presence of a bond to the children's grandmother, who has been their parent figure for most of their lives."
The court also noted that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, placement with a grandmother, even a non-Indian, is contemplated as appropriate.
The justices quoted the trial lawyer who said that "transferring custody to (the mother) would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children."
The high court also held that there is no need for an expert witness to have special knowledge of Indian life if the testimony does not inject cultural bias or subjectivity into the proceedings.
.
But it's not always a slam-dunk...
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/80121_grandmom26.shtml
Jewish relative keeps custody of Indian kids
Friday, July 26, 2002By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Jewish grandmother will be allowed to continue raising her Native American grandchildren in her Tacoma home despite assertions from the mother that the children should be with her.
In a legal battle that balanced cultural protections for Indian families and tribes with the best interests of the children, the court ruled that transferring custody to the mother "would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children."
In 1992, Rebecca Johnston, an Alaskan Indian, and her boyfriend, Mark Mahaney, were living in Anchorage and both were struggling with the ravages of alcohol abuse, according to court documents. That March, they sent their two toddlers to live with their grandmother Erika Mahaney, also of Anchorage. The next year, they gave temporary legal custody to the grandmother, who moved with the youngsters to Tacoma.
The girl, now about 14, and the boy, about 12, have been living with their grandmother ever since and have been raised Jewish, attending Hebrew school and taking Yiddish lessons. The girl, according to court records, describes herself as being Jewish.
Over the years, Rebecca Johnston has made several attempts to regain custody of her children, asserting that she can give them a stable home environment.
An attempt to regain custody in 1994 failed when Erika Mahaney obtained, in Pierce County Superior Court, a temporary non-parental custody order.
Erika Mahaney told the court that the children suffered from "the effects of sexual abuse, domestic violence, general neglect and abandonment" while under their mother's care.
Johnston denied allegations that she used illegal drugs, and accusations from the girl that she sexually abused her. Johnston admits that she saw her younger brother sexually molest both children. In addition, she spent time behind bars after convictions for driving while intoxicated.
The children have been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and other behavioral disorders associated with sexual abuse.
The court ordered that it was in the best interest of the children for the grandmother to retain custody.
Johnston brought her custody battle to the state Court of Appeals in 1999, asserting that under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the Superior Court had not evaluated the evidence against her using the "clear and convincing standard" listed in federal Bureau of Indian Affairs guidelines.
And she said that under the law, an expert versed in Indian culture should have been involved in evaluating the evidence against her.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978 "to promote the security and stability of Indian tribes" while protecting the best interests of Indian children. The law gives a clear preference for keeping Indian children with their families and placing Indian children who must be removed from their homes within their own families or Indian tribes.
The appellate court agreed with the mother and overturned the trial court ruling. The grandmother then brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed Mahaney a victory by overturning the court of appeals ruling.
Saying that the guidelines of evaluating the evidence by a clear and convincing standard do not have the effect of law, the court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not replace the mandate of Washington state law requiring that the best interests of the child be paramount.
"Even where there is no showing of present parental unfitness ... the court may take into consideration emotional and psychological damage from prior unfitness. Moreover, in the case before us, the court is entitled to examine the lack of a bond to the parent and the presence of a bond to the children's grandmother, who has been their parent figure for most of their lives."
The court also noted that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, placement with a grandmother, even a non-Indian, is contemplated as appropriate.
The justices quoted the trial lawyer who said that "transferring custody to (the mother) would likely result in serious emotional and potentially physical damage to the children."
The high court also held that there is no need for an expert witness to have special knowledge of Indian life if the testimony does not inject cultural bias or subjectivity into the proceedings.
.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Iowa Supreme Court Tossed "Indian Child" Definition
.
From:
Jennifer Delgado - The Daily Iowan
Issue date: 12/11/07 Section: Metro
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Nov. 30 (2007) that the state's definition of an "Indian child" is an ethnic classification breaking the 14th Amendment equal-protection clauses in both state and federal Constitutions.
In the future, Iowa will have to come up with a new definition of what constitutes an "Indian child" - one that could possibly be based on tribal membership, UI law Professor Ann Estin said.
The decision comes after a custody case that began in Woodbury County, Iowa, involving two children born in Sioux City. The state removed the children from their home because of their parents' record of substance abuse. Their mother is a member of the Winnebago tribe; their father is white.
The Winnebago tribe, located in northeastern Nebraska, tried to intervene in the custody proceedings, claiming the children fit the definition of "Indian child" under Iowa law and should be returned to the tribe. But because of this new ruling, the tribe cannot legally get involved in the custody battle.
In the Winnebago tribe, children of members are only eligible for membership if they have at least one-fourth degree Winnebago blood - the two children are only one-eighth degree.
In 2004, the Winnebago tribe passed a resolution stating that the offspring are seen as "children of the Winnebago tribal community" because their mother is a member.
"The Winnebago tribe tried to establish this definition, but the court won't let it fly," said Estin, who teaches Indian law.
According to the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, any unmarried Indian who is under the age of 18 or a child who is under 18 that an Indian tribe identifies as a child of their community. Enacted in 2003, its purpose is to clarify state procedures and policies for the federal act. Estin said she believes this ruling is not a step backwards because the federal legislation is still in place, which trumps the state legislation. The 1978 federal law is similar to the Iowa statue but includes Indians who are eligible for membership and who are biological children of a tribal member.' Estin said a law based on ethnicity is difficult to uphold, and the Iowa statute has gone beyond the federal law.
"The biggest problem is Iowa's definition of an Indian child is it turns on the child's ethnicity," she said. "If Iowa wants to revise the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, it has a clear signal from the Supreme Court that it's going to have to have some tie to tribal membership."
.
From:
Jennifer Delgado - The Daily Iowan
Issue date: 12/11/07 Section: Metro
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Nov. 30 (2007) that the state's definition of an "Indian child" is an ethnic classification breaking the 14th Amendment equal-protection clauses in both state and federal Constitutions.
In the future, Iowa will have to come up with a new definition of what constitutes an "Indian child" - one that could possibly be based on tribal membership, UI law Professor Ann Estin said.
The decision comes after a custody case that began in Woodbury County, Iowa, involving two children born in Sioux City. The state removed the children from their home because of their parents' record of substance abuse. Their mother is a member of the Winnebago tribe; their father is white.
The Winnebago tribe, located in northeastern Nebraska, tried to intervene in the custody proceedings, claiming the children fit the definition of "Indian child" under Iowa law and should be returned to the tribe. But because of this new ruling, the tribe cannot legally get involved in the custody battle.
In the Winnebago tribe, children of members are only eligible for membership if they have at least one-fourth degree Winnebago blood - the two children are only one-eighth degree.
In 2004, the Winnebago tribe passed a resolution stating that the offspring are seen as "children of the Winnebago tribal community" because their mother is a member.
"The Winnebago tribe tried to establish this definition, but the court won't let it fly," said Estin, who teaches Indian law.
According to the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, any unmarried Indian who is under the age of 18 or a child who is under 18 that an Indian tribe identifies as a child of their community. Enacted in 2003, its purpose is to clarify state procedures and policies for the federal act. Estin said she believes this ruling is not a step backwards because the federal legislation is still in place, which trumps the state legislation. The 1978 federal law is similar to the Iowa statue but includes Indians who are eligible for membership and who are biological children of a tribal member.' Estin said a law based on ethnicity is difficult to uphold, and the Iowa statute has gone beyond the federal law.
"The biggest problem is Iowa's definition of an Indian child is it turns on the child's ethnicity," she said. "If Iowa wants to revise the Iowa Indian Child and Welfare Act, it has a clear signal from the Supreme Court that it's going to have to have some tie to tribal membership."
.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Definition of Indian Child Welfare Act
.
To all the Congressmen and State legislators that believe the Indian Child Welfare Act is a "no-brainer" good thing:
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is
1) Making it harder for families of heritage to choose to keep their children off the reservation.
2) Selling out my children and grandchildren to tribal government.
3) An anti-family, pro-government justification for the taking of children for the sole purpose of maintaining the power a select group has come to enjoy.
And no - my birth children have never been in subjected to any custody battle. However, the potential was there if my husband and I should pass away. Now, my husband has passed, and I'm all that's left to keep them out of the hands of tribal government,
.
To all the Congressmen and State legislators that believe the Indian Child Welfare Act is a "no-brainer" good thing:
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is
1) Making it harder for families of heritage to choose to keep their children off the reservation.
2) Selling out my children and grandchildren to tribal government.
3) An anti-family, pro-government justification for the taking of children for the sole purpose of maintaining the power a select group has come to enjoy.
And no - my birth children have never been in subjected to any custody battle. However, the potential was there if my husband and I should pass away. Now, my husband has passed, and I'm all that's left to keep them out of the hands of tribal government,
.
Monday, June 15, 2009
States Not Complying with ICWA - for Good Reason
.
The Second Appellate Court in California issued a partially published opinion in Justin L. v. Superior Court, and stated in part;
And under the single criterion that a home be ICWA eligable, kids are continually being placed into horrible situations with the blessing of both the federal and tribal governments.
And not just kids of tribal heritage - but children of every heritage, because a child doesn't need to be 100% tribal to for a tribe to have jurisdiction over them through ICWA. Most tribes require only 1/4 blood quantum, meaning the child has an even greater heritage somewhere else. Some tribes require even less to claim a child. For example, a child in Texas has less than 2% tribal heritage, but the tribe is trying to claim him.
The law itself is a crime, and as long as it stays that way, there will be difficulty in getting compassionate people to comply.
.
The Second Appellate Court in California issued a partially published opinion in Justin L. v. Superior Court, and stated in part;
“We are growing weary of appeals in which the only error is theDepartment’sPerhaps compliance is difficult because the law itself is unjust, and caring people don't like to see children subjected to not only unjust, but dangerous law.
failure to comply with ICWA. (See In re I.G. (2005) 133Cal.App.4th 1246,
1254-1255 [14 published opinions in 2002 through 2005, and72 unpublished cases
statewide in 2005 alone reversing in whole or in part fornoncompliance with
ICWA].) Remand for the limited purpose of the ICWAcompliance is all too common.
(Ibid.) ICWA’s requirements are not new. Yetthe prevalence of inadequate notice
remains disturbingly high.”
And under the single criterion that a home be ICWA eligable, kids are continually being placed into horrible situations with the blessing of both the federal and tribal governments.
And not just kids of tribal heritage - but children of every heritage, because a child doesn't need to be 100% tribal to for a tribe to have jurisdiction over them through ICWA. Most tribes require only 1/4 blood quantum, meaning the child has an even greater heritage somewhere else. Some tribes require even less to claim a child. For example, a child in Texas has less than 2% tribal heritage, but the tribe is trying to claim him.
The law itself is a crime, and as long as it stays that way, there will be difficulty in getting compassionate people to comply.
.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Time to get Started Again
.
Okay - We've had a long period of inaction due to having moved my family first from Alberta back down to the States, but then six months later, to a new state; one in which we had never lived before. Getting kids started in school, trying to find our place in the community, and, of course, giving attention to the presidential election all took a little time. But we've been too far from the important issue of ICWA for too long and now it's time to focus again.
The new legislative session mean an opportunity to talk to the states about the issues. We also need to get back to work on the website - caicw.org - in order to share the ICWA problems and possible solutions to those problems.
Remember - any that are interested in helping are more than welcome.
Read the stories of families struggling against ICWA and tribal jurisdiction over their families at
Okay - We've had a long period of inaction due to having moved my family first from Alberta back down to the States, but then six months later, to a new state; one in which we had never lived before. Getting kids started in school, trying to find our place in the community, and, of course, giving attention to the presidential election all took a little time. But we've been too far from the important issue of ICWA for too long and now it's time to focus again.
The new legislative session mean an opportunity to talk to the states about the issues. We also need to get back to work on the website - caicw.org - in order to share the ICWA problems and possible solutions to those problems.
Remember - any that are interested in helping are more than welcome.
Read the stories of families struggling against ICWA and tribal jurisdiction over their families at
,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)