California Supreme Court Will Not Intervene #Lexi

in Case of Part-Native American Child Lexi Page

People | Naja Rayne

The California Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that it would not get involved in the Page family's fight to regain custody of 6-year-old part-Native American girl Lexi, who was their foster child until recently, ABC 7 reports.
According to the network, the Page family's lawyer, Lori Alvino McGill, expected the court's decision, but said it was a gamble she had to take, adding that each day "without a stay threatens irreparable harm to the Pages and Lexi."
Lexi, who is 1.5 percent Choctaw Native American, was removed from her foster family's home earlier this month after living with the family for 4 years. Following the emotional incident, Rusty and Summer Page vowed to do whatever they could to get the child back, as they have been trying to officially adopt her for some time.
Just one day after Lexi was taken from their custody, the family filed a request to have their appeal heard by the state Supreme Court, after lower courts had previously determined that removing the girl from the home would not cause emotional harm.

Lexi's court-appointed legal representative Leslie Starr Heimov, who works with the Children's Law Center of California, told ABC that despite their sympathetic portrayal, a court ruled three years ago that Lexi should be removed from the Page family's custody.
"It was their litigation that prevented her from moving when she had only been with them for a year," she added.
Lexi was removed from the Page family's home in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and placed with extended family in Utah where her half-sister currently lives in the same house, and another sibling lives down the street.
Although the family members are not blood-related to Lexi, Heimov said in an earlier statement that they "are not strangers in any way, shape or form," as she has been in contact with them through messages and they've made monthly visits with her for the past three years.
According to ABC, the Pages have not been able to talk with Lexi, as promised, since she was moved, but Heimov said that in time the young girl will be able to maintain a relationship with the family and others who care about her. However, she added that because the dispute has become so public, where and how interactions will take place still need to be determined.

[you cannot be part Indian... you are Indian regardless... Trace]

ICWA Case Updates and Legal Clarifications

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Kate Fort | Turtle Talk

Because of the recent media attention to ICWA, here’s a quick update and clarification of some legal details:

ICWA has not been amended, updated, or changed. Ever. The same language that Congress passed in 1978 is the same language in effect today.

In 2015 the Bureau of Indian Affairs updated the ICWA Guidelines for State Courts for the first time since 1979. These non-binding Guidelines are considered persuasive by many states and are in effect now.  State courts are using them in their decisions.  The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) and Building Arizona Families (BAF) challenged the implementation of the 2015 Guidelines in the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D.Va) where they lost a motion to dismiss.  However, they have filed an appeal in the Fourth Circuit, which is where the case currently sits.

Also in 2015, the Department of the Interior proposed federal regulations. Those regulations went through an intensive comment period (you can still read all of those comments here). The regulations have not yet been promulgated, which means the federal government has not released them pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act–which means they do not currently exist. No one knows when they will be promulgated, or what they look like at this point. People (including us) speculate on when or if they will be promulgated before the end of the Administration, but we do not know. We do anticipate (speculate) there will be litigation over the regulations if/when they are.

Finally, the Goldwater litigation, which attracted a big splash of media attention when the complaint was filed in 2015, is on-going. Their goal is to have a court find that ICWA is a race-based law, meaning that the law would be subject to strict scrutiny in the federal courts (you can read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Goldwater attorneys discussing this here, but only if you want to and you probably don’t). This, of course, completely disregards long settled federal and state law (1) regarding tribes, tribal people, political status, and citizenship, which NICWA addresses perfectly at the end of an article here (and you can now disregard the reporter’s claim that ICWA has been amended because you’ve read this post and know that’s wrong). Along those lines, the plaintiffs in the Goldwater case just tried to add two new named plaintiffs, one of whom is not eligible for membership in any tribe. This has led to recent filings by both the federal and state governments named in this case asking the judge to dismiss. Both filings explain in detail why ICWA is not a race-based law.

(1) See, e.g., In the Interest of A.B., 663 N.W.2d 625, 636 (N.D. 2003); In re A.A., 176 P.3d 237, 240 (Kan. App. 2008); In re Adoption of Hannah S., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605, 610-11 (Cal. Ct. App., 3rd. Dist. 2006); In re Interest of Phoenix L., 708 N.W.2d 786, 797-89 (Neb. 2006), rev’d on other grounds; Matter of M.K., 964 P.2d 241, 244 (Okla. Ct. App. 1998); In re Marcus S., 638 A.2d 1158, 1159 (Maine 1994); State ex rel. Children’s Services Div. v. Graves, 848 P.2d 133, 134 (Or. Ct. App. 1993); In re Miller, 451 N.W.2d 576, 579 (Mich. App. 1990); Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 635 P.2d 187, 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981); Matter of Guardianship of D.L.L., 291 N.W.2d 278, 281 (S.D. 1980).

2016 Pivotal Year

The rights of Tribes and Native American families face a pivotal year in 2016.  

In the last year of Barack Obama's presidency, we are redoubling our efforts to build on our historic victories before the transition to a new administration. Please become a member and a donor, and make 2016 a breakthough year for Native families and Tribes.

In December, Lakota People’s Law Project released a report detailing the need for the United States government to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to acknowledge the brutal crimes against Indigenous communities during the Indian Boarding School Era. The report focuses on the continuing intergenerational trauma and destabilization created by the Boarding School Era, a period from the early 19th century into the 1970s when the federal government undertook a program of forced assimilation, ­attempting to rob Natives Peoples of their culture, language and heritage.

Read the report and related press releases.

In addition to our report, the Lakota People’s Law Project is building a coalition to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Boarding School Era in the United States. We recently sent a delegation to the NCAI conference in Washington DC and the National Reservation Economic Summit in Las Vegas to recruit support for our Truth and Reconciliation project. Our close ally, the Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, NABS, has a similar effort, and we are working with them to maximize the effectiveness of both campaigns. We have more collaborative meetings with NABS and NARF, the Native American Rights Fund, planned in the next few months.

We are collecting endorsements from tribes, individuals and aligned organizations, and we need your help. We have begun a petition calling for the U.S. Government to convene a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The more signatures we can gather, the more pressure we can exert on elected officials. Please take time to sign the petition.

Sign the Truth and Reconciliation Petition here.

“The history books are awash with the atrocities leveled against the Indigenous peoples of North America since European settlers first arrived on this continent in the 15th century,” said Chase Iron Eyes, attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project. “Despite this consensus among historians, the United States federal government has never formally acknowledged how its policies directly led to the near eradication of the Native inhabitants of this land. A formal acknowledgement needs to occur. Healing for all parties begins with the truth.”

Also in December, a campaign by the Adoption Attorneys Association of America (AAAA) to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act sustained a significant setback as a federal court judge threw out their case that attempted to argue that new ICWA guidelines violated the civil rights of Indian parents. The lawsuit, filed simultaneously with other AAAA federal cases in Minnesota and Arizona, bizarrely argued that ICWA violated the civil rights of Indian parents who wanted their children removed by state­-run social services departments and placed with non­-Natives. Not only did Judge Lee dismiss the case on technical grounds, i.e. lack of court jurisdiction, but he also confirmed that the ICWA guidelines are non-binding interpretive rules and are thus not subject to adjudication.

“Rarely does one see a legal complaint so utterly crushed by a federal court,” says LPLP Chief Counsel Daniel Sheehan. “To see a case get dismissed, without any oral arguments, on both technical grounds and the merits demonstrates not only the flimsy nature of the legal grounds cited, but also the clumsiness of the crass legal maneuverings and utter lack of moral clarity on the part of those who were behind this ill­advised legal gambit.”
 

Read more about this case in our press releases.

#Lexi Media Coverage

Today's Tweets:

@Phase3ofLife @zealousidler Here another piece on this case https://t.co/UUJBhzwfqC @Trace15 @Adoptiontraffic

— Frank Ligtvoet (@frank_ligtvoet) March 26, 2016

@peaceandharmon6 @frank_ligtvoet @Trace15 That's the problem-not an orphan, not Pages' child. They fought family for years. That's not love.

— PriscillaSharp (@PriscillaStoneS) March 26, 2016

ABC7

On Monday, March 21, pandemonium broke out in Santa Clarita, California, at the home of foster couple Summer and Russell Page as social workers from the Department of Children and Family Services arrived to pick up a 6-year-old girl who was being held by the couple in defiance of a court ordering her returned to relatives after a five-year custody battle.

Breaking: California Returns Child to Family in ICWA Case

Suzette Brewer

3/22/16

On Monday, March 21, pandemonium broke out in Santa Clarita, California, at the home of foster couple Summer and Russell Page as social workers from the Department of Children and Family Services arrived to pick up a 6-year-old girl who was being held by the couple in defiance of a court ordering her returned to relatives after a five-year custody battle. At 2:45 p.m. PST, the sobbing girl was carried to a vehicle and whisked away as dozens of media outlets and protesters looked on, bringing an end to a stand-off over the child’s custody that had made headlines around the world.
The girl, who goes by the name “Lexi,” was ordered to be placed with relatives, including her biological sister, in Utah in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Her identity was released to the media by the Pages over the weekend, including a Facebook page titled “Save Lexi,” in which they sought public support in defiance of the court’s order, according to legal experts in California.
On Sunday, the Pages, who authorities say were told repeatedly from the beginning that the child was “never up for adoption,” were supposed to facilitate a peaceful transfer at 10 a.m., but efforts to retrieve the child were blocked by protesters who had surrounded the couple’s house to prevent her removal. Officials did not want the transfer to become a dangerous situation and left without the child, according to those familiar with the case.
Yesterday morning, however, officials from DCFS released a statement that the agency intended to carry out the court’s order and asked the media “to respect the child’s privacy.” Behind the scenes, authorities were in contact with the foster parents to inform them to prepare Lexi for transfer or face criminal charges.
The girl has been at the center of a custody battle between the couple, her biological father and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, for nearly five years. She is the second child that the Pages have attempted to adopt out of foster care, according to court documents. The first child was also returned to its extended family after a custody battle with the Pages.
Indeed, according to both court documents and those familiar with the case, Lexi has had an ongoing relationship with her relatives in Utah for nearly her whole life. The couple, who are non-Indian relatives of Lexi’s biological father, fall within the familial placement preferences under ICWA. They have visited the girl at their own expense every month and regularly Skype with the girl at least once a week. Additionally, she has visited them in Utah, as well, and―significantly, she considers them family, according to insiders.
“These are not strangers that she’s never seen before or had any kind of relationship with,” said a source close to the father’s family who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issues involved. “Her sister also lives with [the Utah couple] and she has another sister who lives down the street from them. She has a very close relationship with the Utah relatives, and the Pages have been a big part of facilitating that over the years, so it’s baffling that they would create this kind of drama and friction between the two families at the last minute when they have thus far had a very amicable relationship that was in Lexi’s best interest. They knew good and well that the transfer was coming―this was not a surprise visit from DCFS, so all this drama was completely for show.”
Attempts to reach the Pages or their legal team by ICTMN were unsuccessful, however, their attorney, Lori Alvino McGill―who also represented Baby Veronica’s birth mother, Christy Maldonado in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl in 2013―told local media that she will be filing an appeal with the California Supreme Court forthwith for the girl’s return and that another trip to the United States Supreme Court may be in the works “if that becomes necessary.”

RELATED: Broken: Choctaw Father in California Thwarted in Custody Battle With Foster Couple

A Little Perspective
The case began in 2010 when the child’s father lost custody of his daughter after he went to jail for selling stolen auto parts, according to court documents. The girl went through several foster homes before being placed with the Pages, who have been attempting to retain her ever since, in spite of being reminded numerous times by the state and the courts that she would eventually either be reunified with her father or be sent to live with relatives.

RELATED: The Battle for ICWA Goes to California With Contested Choctaw Foster Case

The girl’s father was released from jail in December 2011, after which the girl remained with the Pages while he worked to complete a “reunification plan,” which included unmonitored day visits over weekends.
At some point, however, communication between the Pages and father broke down after it became clear that they were targeting his daughter for adoption and interfering with his visitations, he told ICTMN at the time. According to court documents, the father was a “model parent” who had over time become depressed and worn down by fighting with the Pages and what he considered lengthy, unnecessary reunification requirements that he felt were not getting him any closer to regaining custody of his daughter.
In December 2013, he reluctantly ceased reunification and requested that she be placed with relatives according to placement preferences under ICWA. In 2014, however, the Pages went to court to establish “de facto parent” status―giving them the same rights and standing as biological parents―which was unanimously rejected by a California appeals court.

RELATED: California Appeals Court Upholds ICWA in Choctaw Foster Case

“The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful,” the National Indian Child Welfare Association said in a statement. “The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children, not just Native American.”

Moving Forward Under the New Normal
According to officials with the California DCFS, peaceable transitions for the child are the primary objectives when replacing them to another home. Alerting the media, refusing to relinquish the child and releasing her name to the press is in violation of not only the court order, but also a violation of confidentiality that is enumerated under state statute.
“We like all of our transitions and replacements to go smoothly,” said Armand Montiel, public affairs officer for DCFS. “We don’t like drama for the child.”
Montiel said the actions by the Pages over the weekend could trigger sanctions not only by the court, but also by the foster agency in making a determination about whether they should remain a foster family.
Leslie Heimov is the executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents 33,000 children in Los Angeles and Sacramento, with over 275 lawyers, paralegals, investigators and social workers. They also represent Lexi’s interests in this case. Heimov said the main priority at present is to ensure her safety and well-being during the transition period, in spite of the media chaos surrounding her retrieval yesterday.
“The privacy issues in dependency court proceedings are confidential under state statute, so we try to follow the law and we have not yet decided whether we’ll pursue legal action against the Pages for violating confidentiality,” Heimov told ICTMN this morning. “At the moment we are more concerned about our client and the best way to get her placed with relatives and her emotional and physical well-being. That said, even setting ICWA aside, this child has a family and sibling that she should be placed with, which is also the preference under California state law. We are very cognizant of the privacy issues, but we feel that the information that is being reported in the public arena about this case should be accurate.”

RELATED: Trafficking Native Children: The Seamy Underbelly of U.S. Adoption Industry




Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/22/breaking-california-returns-child-family-icwa-case-163881

 

For 15 Minutes Of Fame, Pages using #BabyAlexandria

By Trace Hentz, American Indian Adoptees Blog Editor

Turtle Talk has posted the latest developments in the #BabyAlexandria (Lexie) case out of California. I have my own concerns.
The daily media circus is being manipulated and slanted, as we would expect from the same players who participated in the Baby Veronica case.
The Pages (Lexie's foster parents) are deliberately playing out their case in front of television cameras, a glaring manipulation of media and the public, seeking their 15 minutes of fame. These people seem oblivious to how racist it is to use a child, demean her blood quantum, just to elicit and gain sympathy for themselves.
Remember her foster family filed appeals three times, delaying Alexandria's rights to be with her own family and siblings. Now Lexie is home, and safe.

"Finally, the use of the media in this case to inflame opinion, spread false information about the situation, publicize a child’s name and face, and to try to dismantle ICWA itself [again] is deplorable," Kate Fort said in her Turtle Talk post (see below).

Choctaw Nation’s statement.
The following statement reflects the Choctaw Nation's position on the case of Lexi.

We appreciate the concern for Lexi and want to assure everyone she is in a safe, loving home with her relatives and her biological sisters.
The Choctaw Nation has advocated for Lexi to live with her family since 2011. These relatives have been a part of Lexi’s life for almost five years. They are not strangers. They have maintained a relationship with her, visiting her in California, making regular SKYPE calls, and Lexi has also been on extended visits to Utah.

The family has been waiting for five years for all of them to be together.

Foster care is a much-needed temporary service provided for children until the child can be returned to the care of his or her family. Placement with family is the gold-standard of any child-custody case, not just a case involving tribal children. The Pages were always aware of this goal.

Many steps have been taken by the Choctaw Nation to ensure the best placement of Lexi.  An independent clinical psychologist was brought in to gauge her ability to transition from the foster home to her relatives.  The California court appointed a marriage and family therapist to perform a child custody evaluation to assess the mental health and parenting practices of both parties. The experts along with Lexi’s long-time individual therapists, her social worker and her attorney, all agree it is in her best interest to be with her relatives. The foster family understood this.  All children, not just Native children, do better with caring relatives.

The case was decided in the California court system three separate times, with three different trial court judges ruling in favor of Lexi’s relatives in Utah.  We, as a tribe, are required to follow federal law.  The foster family filed appeals three times to keep Lexi, delaying the reuniting of Lexi with her relatives.

Lexi’s safety and wellbeing are the Choctaw Nation’s paramount concern.

Her family will provide her a safe, stable and nurturing home to grow up with her sisters and to have contact with her extensive extended family.
Please respect the privacy of Lexi and her family.


NICWA’s statement

###

Turtle Talk will continue to add statements from other groups as we receive them. And, because it’s what we do, we’ve created a page with all of the publicly available primary source documents in this case. You can find that here. (see below)

The foster parents’ attorney has issued a statement claiming she will use this case to appeal ICWA up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. We’ve heard this before, and there are very few legal routes left for them to do that, but we still expect they will try them all.

Meanwhile, this case is not just about Indian Country.  The role of foster care in this country is clear–to provide a temporary, loving home for a child while her family receives services to so the child can go home safely.  It is also provides time for the state to search for other -relative- homes for the child.  This is a best practice regardless of whether the child is Native or not. It’s actually state law in California. Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 361.3.  In fact, it’s the law in a lot of states.  That’s because relative preference in placement is also required by the federal government for states to receive Title IV-E funding. 25 U.S.C. 671(a)(19). Preventing a child from living with her siblings and relatives –family she knows, and who have spent considerable time planning this transition– contrary to court order is not the role of foster parents.

Finally, the use of the media in this case to inflame opinion, spread false information about the situation, publicize a child’s name and face, and to try to dismantle ICWA itself [again] is deplorable. The type of comments that NICWA, the California Children’s Law Center, Choctaw Nation and other individuals are receiving, particularly on social media, should disturb us all. Those taking the brunt of this deserve our full support and thanks.

In re Alexandria P.

A note on using a child’s name for this page–that is the name of the only reported appellate case in this situation. It’s the citation we all have to use.
Docket from the California Court of Appeals for the In re Alexandria P. appellate decision.
Turtle Talk post on the case.
Docket from the California Supreme Court denying review.
Unpublished decision after lower court keeps placement order with family.
Docket from the unpublished decision.
Docket from March Petition for Writ of Supersedeas
Statement from NICWA
Turtle Talk post
Follow up Statement from NICWA
Statement from Choctaw Nation

Q&A with Filmmaker Colleen Cardinal #60sScoop

Q&A with Filmmaker, Colleen Cardinal

Q. Why did you embark on this project?

A: There needs to be an awakening in Canada to the realities of Indigenous peoples—especially us telling our own stories to raise awareness, educate and support our own healing journeys. My lived experiences include being caught up in a deliberate attempt at cultural genocide—death by social policy.  When I first learned there were thousands of adoptees that went through similar experiences of cultural loss, loneliness and abuse as I did, I wanted to support them and make sure their stories were validated and shared.

Q: What is your connection to the 60s Scoop?
A: In the early 1970s, when my two sisters and I were very young, we were taken away from our biological parents and placed in foster homes.  We were adopted into a non-Indigenous household in Ontario, three thousand miles away from our homeland, our people, our language and anything vaguely familiar to our Cree culture.  Life was difficult in our new home; we dealt with isolation, racism and sexual and physical abuse for many years.  All three of us had run away by the time we were fifteen-years-old.  Eventually we all found our way back to Alberta (Cardinal, 2012).

Q: Who else is involved with this documentary?
A: Several 60’s Scoop survivors and survivor advocates, as well as my son.
We will share what it was like to grow up in non-Indigenous families, without their culture, language, lands, identity and relations.  This deliberate attempt at assimilation of Indigenous people in Canada and enforced federal policy through Children’s Services or Children’s Aid Societies left the survivors feeling disconnected from themselves and their people.  Robert Commanda will also lend his voice and insights about a class action lawsuit against the Ontario provincial government that he has been fighting in the courts for the past four years.  The documentary will also include my son Sage Hele, who will speak about how inter-generational trauma, abuse and discrimination shaped his own life.  I am grateful to those involved with this project for their resilience, passion and openness to sharing their stories and healing journeys.

Q: What questions do you want this project to answer?
A: The most important question to be addressed is how Canadian government 60’s Scoop policies affected Indigenous people’s lives.  I would like to highlight the very high number of Indigenous children who were “scooped” away from their families and communities.  It’s important for Canadians to see that the social issues covered by the media are a direct result of these policies to eradicate Indigenous people in Canada.

Q: Why is this documentary so important NOW?
A: I feel this is important because of the growing need for understanding, awareness and education for mainstream Canadian audiences.  The Idle No More movement and the resurgence of Indigenous culture and awareness has Indigenous people asking questions and awakening their need to reclaim their identity.  I also feel this documentary needs to be shared so that other 60’s Scoop survivors know they are not alone.

Q: What support do you need in order to make this project a reality?
A: I need Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to share the project within their social and professional networks to raise awareness, financial and in-kind donations for our project work. Donations will go towards equipment rentals, transportation costs and honorariums for artists featured in the the documentary.

SOURCE

More questions than answers #Alexandria #ICWA

ICWA Placement Preference Decision Out of California Involving Choctaw Tribe (Turtle Talk)

Here.
This is a re-occurring and incredibly frustrating ICWA fact pattern–if the ICWA compliant placement is out of state, or far away from the parents, and the goal is reunification, it makes sense for the tribe and state to allow for a non-compliant ICWA placement near the parents. What happens, however, when reunification fails? As in this case, a court is often unwilling to remove the child from the home she has been in for anywhere from one to three years. Honest, actual, concurrent permanency planning could help with this, but while that is a best practice, it does not seem to be happening with any regularity at the state.

Concluding that the ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences do apply to this case, we then review the trial court’s order finding that the P.s failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of good cause to depart from those placement preferences. We determine that the court applied the correct burden of proof by requiring the P.s to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was good cause to deviate from section 1915’s placement preferences. However, the court erroneously required the P.s to prove a certainty that Alexandria would suffer harm if moved, and failed to consider Alexandria’s best interests or her bond with the P.s in determining good cause.
***
We recognize that a final decision regarding Alexandria’s adoptive placement will be further delayed as a result of our determination of the merits of this appeal. That delay is warranted by the need to insure that the correct legal standard is utilized in deciding whether good cause has been shown that it is in the best interest of Alexandria to depart from the ICWA’s placement preferences.

As also often happens, the parties start arguing about the very constitutionality of ICWA, making this case a “not as bad as it could have been” case–the court didn’t find ICWA is unconstitutional, nor does Adoptive Couple apply (as the de facto parents argued) to this fact pattern. And yet, the trial court decision placing the child with her extended family is still overturned based on the child’s best interest standard. Getting courts to acknowledge that the best interests of a child ought to include the child’s whole life, not just the one transition in front of the court at that moment, is both vital and seemingly impossible.

For the (depressing) record, here is Evelyn Blanchard writing the same thing in 1977 in The Destruction of American Indian Families, ed. Steven Unger (Association of American Indian Affairs 1977).

TODAY:  NICWA’s statement:

We are disturbed by this weekend’s flurry of negative media attention regarding the attempted reunification of a child with her family in Utah. In this contentious custody case, there have never been any surprises as far as what the law required. The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful.

In fact, the only surprising turn of events is the lengths the foster family has gone to, under the advice of an attorney with a long history of trying to overturn ICWA, to drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child in question. That the foster family now argues bonding and attachment should supersede all else despite testimony of those closest to her case, seems like a long-term, calculated legal strategy based on the simple fact that the law was always clear, they understood it, but just chose not to abide by it.

The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children, not just Native American children.

We call on the media to provide balanced reporting and to ask vital questions regarding these facts before inflaming the public and subjecting the privacy and future well-being of a little girl to national debate.

Previous coverage of the appeal of this case is here.

As always, we remain concerned with the lack of privacy for a child who doesn’t get to make decisions about her identity being put forward into the press. In perhaps no surprise to anyone, this case involves repeat players from the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/indian-child-welfare-act-separates-062934936.html

Why Treaties Matter

Why Treaties Matter: Self-Government in the Dakota and Ojibwe Nation is a nationally recognized, award-winning, traveling exhibit made in partnership with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian.

Virtual Exhibit

Unable to explore the exhibit in person? The online virtual exhibit is a great alternative to the in-person experience. Explore the virtual exhibit.
 
In the News

Highlights of what people are saying and the Traveling Exhibit to date (PDF)

The exhibit has expanded to include seven educator guides of innovative classroom material and an enhanced virtual exhibit available at TreatiesMatter.org.

Learn more about the Humanities Center's work with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the development of the Why Treaties Matter project.


Dakota and Ojibwe-U.S.Treaties Today
Learn from tribal members in Minnesota as they discuss treaties from a personal and scholarly perspective. How do these videos challenge or reinforce your current perceptions of treaties?

A Day in the Life of Minnesota Tribal Nations is a 14 minute video production by the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, created in partnership with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the Minnesota Humanities Center.

American Indian Responses to Statehood
In the months leading up to the state of Minnesota's sesquicentenial, the Minnesota Humanities Center began working with Dakota and Ojibwe people to record stories of how statehood affected their homes, their familes, their future.

Bdote Memory Map
The Bdote Memory Map (bdotememorymap.org) is a geography-based, digital media resource for Dakota people to express connections to traditional places and to help non-Native citizens see Minnesota from an indigenous point of view.

Map of major land cessions in Minnesota treaties (PDF)

Treaties involving Indigenous people and land with Minnesota Territory (PDF)

Play the quiz: How much do YOU know about about treaties? (will download a PowerPoint onto your computer)

Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim

About the Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim + Registration as a Class Member

About the Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim + Registration as a Class Member

About the Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim

The Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim (www.sixtiesscoopclaim.com) is about an agreement between Canada and Ontario that resulted in a lost generation of Indian children.

The children were “lost” because they lost their cultural identity, family, extended family, community, language, spirituality, traditions and customs of their First Nations’ communities. Canada turned a blind eye to the protection of the identity of the Indian child when it entered into an agreement leaving these children to be dealt with under Ontario child protection and adoption laws without regard to their cultural identity.

The Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim holds Canada to its constitutional responsibility for the protection of the cultural identity of the Indian.

Some writers, commentators and survivors, say that what Canada did was intentional, that by turning a blind eye through the agreement with Ontario, a generation of Indian children would be assimilated into mainstream culture.

Some international NGO observers argue that what took place was a form of genocide,identity genocide, carried out by the Canadian government.

In the meantime, register here if you are one of the survivors of the lost generation of children of the Sixties Scoop.

Registration as a Class Member

The “Class” Definition

In Brown & Commanda v. Canada [2013] ONSC 5637, [2013] O.J. No. 4381 (S.C.J.), the Honourable Justice Edward Belobaba defines the “class” for the Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim as follows:

Indian children who were taken from their homes on reserves in Ontario between December 1, 1965 and December 31, 1984 and were placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents who did not raise the children in accordance with the aboriginal person’s customs, traditions, and practices.

Therefore, to be a member of the class, you are a person who:

1. is an Indian, and

2. was removed from your Indian reserve, and

3. was removed from your Ontario reserve between December 1, 1965 and December 31, 1984, and

4. was placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents, and

5. those non-aboriginal foster parents or adoptive parents did not raise you in accordance with your aboriginal or Indian customs, traditions and practices.

If you cannot remember or you don’t know enough information to know if you qualify as a “class” member, should you still register?

The answer is “YES”. Please register.

If you don’t know or don’t remember any information as described in the examples below, please register.

You may qualify even if you don’t know or remember the information you might think you need to know or remember.

READ ON and if you fall into any of the following 12 examples then doregister as a class member:

(1) If you can’t remember or don’t know the date when you lived on a reserve, but can only remember the date when you were placed in a non-aboriginal foster or non-aboriginal adoptive home, register. It does not matter that you cannot remember the date when you lived on a reserve.

(2) If you can’t remember or don’t know the date when you were place in a non-aboriginal foster or non-aboriginal adoptive home, but can remember when you were removed from your Indian community, register. It does not matter that you cannot remember or do not know the date when you were placed in a non-aboriginal foster or non-aboriginal adoptive home.

(3) If you can’t remember or do not know the dates of either events, can’t remember or do not know when you lived on a reserve or when you were placed in a non-aboriginal foster or non-aboriginal adoptive home, register. It does not matter that you cannot remember or do not know the dates of either event.

(4) If you can’t remember or do not know the exact dates, or even the year when it happened, just approximately some time during the 20-year period, register. It does not matter that you cannot remember or do not know the exact dates of either event.

(5) If you can’t remember or do not know where you ended up, the place of your foster home or adoptive home, register. You don’t need to know or remember where you were placed.

(6) If you can’t remember or do not know the name or location of your original reserve, register. You don’t need to remember or know the name or location of your reserve as long as it was in Ontario.

(7) If you can’t remember or do not know if you were a status Indian when you were removed, register. You don’t need proof of your Indian status to register.

(8) If you went from an Indian residential school to a non-aboriginal foster home or non-aboriginal adoptive home, register. We intend to include you as part of the class.

(9) If you were born as an Indian and did not ever live on a reserve, but went directly to a non-aboriginal foster home or non-aboriginal adoptive home, register.

(10) If you were removed before December 1, 1965 but placed in a non-aboriginal foster home or non-aboriginal adoptive home any time between December 1, 1965 and December 31, 1984, register.

(11) If you don’t know whether where you lived was an official or registered Indian reserve, register. It does not matter whether you know whether the First Nations community was or was not an official or registered reserve.

(12) If you know you were not a status Indian when you were removed, and then placed in a non-aboriginal foster home or adoptive home, but you identity as a Canadian aboriginal person, for example, a Métis, register. Indicate this fact on the registration form.

Letting Others Know About this Website and Registration

After you have registered, send out notice to anyone else you know who might want to know about the Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim (www.sixtiesscoopclaim.com). Brown and Commanda started this case believing that all persons who were affected would come forward and begin the long road of healing from the pain of being the lost generation of children of the Sixties Scoop. Please share this page.

Chris Eyre 3min Video

Chris Eyre is a filmmaker and reunited adoptee. His bio is in the book TWO WORLDS.

#60sScoop Stolen Generations

Sixties Scoop still not well-recognized, aboriginal adoptees say

Experts say exact numbers of aboriginal children adopted by Quebec families unclear...

Real Talk on Race is CBC Montreal's special series exploring personal conversations and experiences around race in the city.

• For the full series, click here
• Real Talk on Race: What's behind CBC Montreal's series
• Point of View: 'Change her name. Don't tell her she's native'

---

For decades, thousands of aboriginal children were taken from their parents, often without their consent or even their knowledge, and grew up never knowing their own culture.
But a lot of Canadians don't know it.

'My parents who adopted me had no idea I was stolen.' - Nina Segalowitz, aboriginal child of Sixties Scoop

"My parents who adopted me had no idea I was stolen," said Nina Segalowitz, a child of what's known as the Sixties Scoop. "They had no idea the scope of how many kids...had been stolen and were in the system."
Segalowitz grew up in Montreal, the daughter of a white Jewish father and a Filipino mother. But she was born Anne-Marie Thrasher, in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories.

 

READ NOW

60s Scoop Nakuset's Story

Nakuset says she grew up yearning for her native roots. 'I so desperately wanted to belong.' (Pierre Temblay/Listo Films)

READ HERE

 

Read all of the Point of View pieces in the Real Talk on Race series

Abandoned, Adopted Here trailer

My friend Lucy's new documentary... please watch... Trace

Negotiating Indian Identity: Canada

By Trace Hentz

 

Click below to read paper

 

[PDF] A Discussion Paper on Indigenous Custom Adoption Part 1: Severed Connections-Historical Overview of Indigenous Adoption in Canada

L di Tomasso, S de Finney - First Peoples Child Family Review, 2015

... interests of the child” became the primary consideration of child welfare agencies in North America
(Carrière, 2010). ... Split feathers: Adult American Indians who were placed in non-Indian families
as children. ... Negotiating Indian identity: Native Americans and transracial adoption ...

Arise America: Native American Teen Suicides - Simon Moya Smith

HARD LIVES: living in concentration camps LINK

The 60's Scoop

The Sixties Scoop (video)

Historic agreement gives tribe foster care control

Jurisdiction over child welfare to transfer from state to Tlingit and Haida Central Council

By LISA PHU | JUNEAU EMPIRE| March 3, 2016

When children are taken out of their homes due to neglect or abuse, they’re under the responsibility and jurisdiction of the State Office of Children’s Services. 

Now, through an agreement signed Wednesday night at the Elizabeth Peratrovich Hall between the State of Alaska and Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, the Central Council will be able to take over child welfare cases of tribal children.

Instead of going through the state court system, these cases will go through the tribal court system. Instead of state workers overseeing the cases, tribal case managers will work with families. Instead of the state licensing the foster homes, Central Council will recruit and license tribal foster homes and be reimbursed by the state for the cost of foster care placement.

“This truly is a government-to-government agreement that recognizes that tribes are uniquely and supremely and ultimately qualified to be able to meet the needs of tribal families,” said Valerie Davidson, Department of Health and Social Services Commissioner. “That’s not new. And quite frankly — if I may as an Alaska Native — we have known that for thousands of years.” 

Barbara Dude is a child welfare specialist with Central Council’s Tribal Family & Youth Services. She said parents trying to get their children back will have a better working relationship with a tribal entity than with the state, and be more successful at reunification. 

“Families are just more willing to work with us because we’re the tribal workers. They’re more willing to sit down with us and help their case plans,” Dude said.

She also noted that tribal court “is just a friendlier environment.”

President Richard Peterson said Central Council has been working toward the agreement for 16 years and thanked the Office of Children’s Services for working collaboratively. He said Alaska Native families continue to work through issues stemming from historical trauma and the agreement “will begin putting our families back together.”

Central Council will start by taking just a few Juneau cases from the state. Right now, 24 Tlingit and Haida children are in foster homes, the majority of which are in Juneau, according to the Office of Children’s Services.

Francine Eddy Jones, director of Central Council’s Tribal Family & Youth Services, said it’s important to be methodical and cautious.

“It’s a process of learning together — Office of Children’s Services, the tribe, the state court and tribal court — to figure out what that handoff looks like,” she said.

Jones said Central Council hopes to provide a lot of support and encouragement to families who’ve had children taken away and tribal foster families, many of whom don’t trust the state.

“It really means taking care of our own,” Jones said. “It means being responsible and respectful and honoring them with the values of the tribe, making sure we’re holding up those families whatever that situation is for why their children are removed, embrace them and provide them the support and services they need to get back on their feet, and hopefully be reunited with their children. That’s our commitment.”

This is only the second such agreement between the state and a tribe. The first was with the Tanana Chiefs Conference in 2013. 

• Contact reporter Lisa Phu at 523-2246 or lisa.phu@juneauempire.com.

Top Photo: After signing the agreement, Department of Health and Social Services Commissioner Valerie Davidson takes a picture of Central Council President Richard Peterson doing the same. The signing ceremony took place at the Elizabeth Peratrovich Hall on Wednesday night.