A Glimmer of Hope #ICWA #BABYVERONICA

In recent days, because of the Baby V case and all the publicity and drama that ensued and the unjust decisions to hand Ronnie over to the SC adopters, she is still a Cherokee child and a sovereign citizen of her nation.  Judges everywhere should preside and rule by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and case by case recognize that Indian children are everywhere, not only on reservations.  American Indian children need to be protected and raised by their tribal kin.  ICWA is still a valid standing federal law. Read this case (below).  Last night I was a guest on John Kane's Let's Talk Native. One of the things he asked, is there anything for Dusten to do to get Ronnie back? I answered that if there are improprieties or collusion or another court finds that Nightlight Adoption Agency and those in the law profession acted improperly or illegally, then there is still a glimmer of hope. Because of Ronnie Brown, this hope exists and discussion continues around the world!... Trace

Podcast: LISTEN

 

A Positive ICWA Case Out of California

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Kate Fort

We almost never see a positive case out of California. Here is one (In re C.S.), and the words of the juvenile referee Sobel from state court:

The court granted the section 388 petitions filed by mother and father, concluding, “We have an American Indian child. That’s different. We have siblings who are with relatives. That’s different. We have a new baby who has been safely in the mother’s care since the [non-detain] petition was filed. That’s different. So, when you say that the children who are placed with foster parents at birth, that is their parent, the parent that is there night and day, you are correct, in every case, that’s correct. But the point of this is what happens to parents in the part that we call reunification? Where at some point do the parents earn the right to become those people? Where is that transference into being able to be a parent? Now, with the two other children . . . , they are with relatives. Those relatives are glad to step back and be relatives. If they need to adopt, they will. But the fact is they are grandparents. They prefer to be grandparents. I have two parents in complete compliance with their original case plan and American Indian. As to [C.’s older sibling and half-sibling], there’s no question there are changed circumstances here. The issue is best interest and I find it’s in the best interest of [the older sibling and half-sibling] to grant the 388 and place the children home of parents: mom for [the half-sibling and sibling], dad and mom for [the sibling]. We’ve already taken [the baby] off the track [by dismissing the non-detain petition as to her]. . . . [C.] is American Indian. She has three siblings. Those siblings are going home. . . . I am telling you, from my heart, an American Indian child belongs in an American Indian home, especially when that home has siblings in it and parents who are appropriate. There is no question that ICWA requires that I do what is right under ICWA; that I do what’s right for this family, understanding and knowing that C. loves [her de facto parents] both as a primary attachment. . . .    I’m granting mother[’s] and father’s 388 as to C., finding there are changed circumstances and that it is in the child’s best interest to be returned to her parents.”