How to Use this Blog
BOOZHOO! We've amassed tons of information and important history on this blog since 2010. If you have a keyword, use the search box below. Also check out the reference section above. If you have a question or need help searching, use the contact form at the bottom of the blog.
We want you to use BOOKSHOP! (the editor will earn a small amount of money or commission. (we thank you) (that is our disclaimer statement)
This is a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a sponsored publication... WE DO NOT HAVE ADS or earn MONEY from this website. The ideas, news and thoughts posted are sourced… or written by the editor or contributors.
Supreme Court won't hear case
|
archival photo |
Supreme Court rejects adoption case involving Cherokee Nation
WASHINGTON — The
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (May 21) declined to hear an unusual adoption case from
Utah involving the
Cherokee Nation and the question of when a person becomes an Indian.
Without comment, the high court let stand a decision by the 10
th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a child's natural mother could not regain her parental rights by claiming that the child she gave up for adoption was an Indian who was subject to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act.
The mother of the child terminated her parental rights in court the day after the child was born in 2007. However, a month after the adoption was finalized in 2008, the mother filed a federal court petition seeking to nullify her voluntary termination of parental rights because the Indian Child Welfare Act required a 10-day waiting period in cases involving American Indian children.
The Cherokee Nation intervened for the mother, arguing that because the child's ancestors could be traced to the original tribal rolls, the child was automatically given temporary tribal citizenship at birth and that the Indian Child Welfare Act prohibited the mother from terminating her parental rights within 10 days.
A federal judge agreed. But the 10
th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the question wasn't the Cherokee Nation's citizenship laws, but the federal law. The court said the law applied only to children eligible for tribal membership because their parent was a member and the child's mother was not a Cherokee citizen.
Utah attorney
James B. Hanks, who represented the couple that adopted the child, said in an email response on Monday that the Supreme Court decision on Monday ended the case.
The Cherokee Nation declined comment on Monday.
Read more:
http://newsok.com/washington-briefs-supreme-court-rejects-adoption-case-involving-cherokee-nation-majority-of-oklahoma-congressional-delegation-speaks-at-level-above-congressional-average/article/3677448#ixzz1wdyz6700
It's sad these news stories never mention the child as sacred or worthy of protection. It becomes the colonial mindset of who is Indian enough to be protected by federal law - which speaks volumes about court cases involving Indian children.... Trace
Most READ Posts
-
Editor NOTE: This is one of our most popular posts so we are reblogging it. If you do know where Michael Schwartz is, please leave a com...
-
Lost Sparrow movie/all are adoptees For about 100 years, the U.S. government supported a system of boarding schools where more than 100,00...
-
Eric Schweig Born: Ray Dean Thrasher on 19 June 1967 Inuvik , Northwest Territories , Canada Occupation Actor/Artisan/...
-
By Trace Hentz Back in 2011, I posted a story on this blog about the book SUDDEN FURY and the grizzly murder of Maryland adoptive paren...
-
Facts About Adoption You Won’t Hear from Adoption Professionals Every November we post accuracy about the effects of adoption on the adopt...
-
An Indigenous newborn taken from her mother just hours after birth in an apprehension broadcast live on Facebook is expected to be back hom...
-
THIS IS A REPOST FROM 2015 By Trace L Hentz (Wisconsin adoptee since 1958) I want the readers to know how difficult it can be t...
-
Kevin Ost-Vollmers and Shelise Gieseke at Land of Gazillion Adoptees Blog said Feb. 26th begins BLOG WEEK to answer this question: “Why ...
60s Scoop Survivors Legal Support
GO HERE:
https://www.gluckstein.com/sixties-scoop-survivors
ADOPTION TRUTH
As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.”
The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.
Why tribes do not recommend the DNA swab
Rebecca Tallbear entitled: “DNA, Blood, and Racializing the Tribe”, bearing out what I only inferred:
Detailed discussion of the Bering Strait theory and other scientific theories about the population of the modern-day Americas is beyond the scope of this essay. However, it should be noted that Indian people have expressed suspicion that DNA analysis is a tool that scientists will use to support theories about the origins of tribal people that contradict tribal oral histories and origin stories. Perhaps more important,the alternative origin stories of scientists are seen as intending to weaken tribal land and other legal claims (and even diminish a history of colonialism?) that are supported in U.S. federal and tribal law. As genetic evidence has already been used to resolve land conflicts in Asian and Eastern European countries, this is not an unfounded fear.
Trace...Please forward your blog post to Indian Country Magazine. Tribes need to be put on notice that all expecting parents must be enrolled or their children will NOT have ICWA coverage.
ReplyDeleteAll expecting parents are indeed in danger if not on the rez and not on top on this - I will forward to ICT Media and hope they will post it!
ReplyDeleteThanks!