I'd like to hear form some of our more knowledgeable members on this. Do you feel it's right?  Is this similar to the old 'One Drop of Negro Blood means you are a Negro', carried even further in this case?

I wasn't aware that there was a blood quantum under ICWA. What different does it make if she is 1/64 or 3/4 or full blood? She is Indian, by the laws of the U.S.

Why do you think the ICWA was put in place? It was because thousands of Native children were being taken from their families and given to white families. When there were Indian foster parents or family ready and willing to take them.

This is still going on today in some states and there are enough lawsuits and articles to back this up.

Are you fighting this situation Spike? Or are you stuck on 1/64?

No Kav, I was asking because I'm unfamiliar with the rule of this law and how it's applied.  It seems in the story that the people that wanted her back to them is also not a Native American (but a Step-grandfather).  So, what I was asking, was what do you think of this?

However Gary, they do meet the qualifications of "extended family" which is one of the primary purposes of the law.  By placing her with that family, she will also be with her sister who had been placed years ago and will be living down the street from her other sister.  That is extended family - the three sisters being together is an appropriate action.

It is controlled by the tribe, Jim. And there can be additional requirements in addition to blood quantum. In our tribe you must have a parent that was enrolled with that specific band. Being from another band will not get you into our band. (Red Lake Ojibwe) plus the blood quantum requirement is 1/4. It was 1/2 but has been changed. I am enrolled and also have Michif blood. The Michif or Metis as we are called are not recognized in the U.S. but in Canada they are the largest indigenous group. Around 400,000 strong.

As for this child and case, it's quite clear from the article that they were told that the child would only be a foster child to them, and the delay is from the foster parents starting a law case that would give them the right to adopt the child.

I find it interesting that the outcry from some is based on their limited knowledge of the ICWA, why it was instituted and that is happening today in many states.

Does anyone remember the ''Baby Veronica'' case from a few years ago. You might want to look it up and see how a baby was taken from her father, (Indian) and given to a white couple. It was a complete joke. Or do a little research and find out the thousands of Native kids that were taken from their parents and send to Indian Boarding schools. Or check out the ''Lost Birds''. Try doing some research on how adoption agencies are trying to overturn the ICWA.

Check out the law suits in SD regarding ICWA. And how the state of SD has ignored the ICWA.

Do you not think that the thousands of Indian children that were taken don't have on going problems? Don't they count?

Yes, I care about the this child, and all the other native children that were taken and today live in a lost world. Do you?

There is also the issue of extended family. She will be living with a sister, and I believe another sister that lives close by.

That's what I was looking for-I'm not taking any kind of extreme position on this, just wanted to learn some more about it.

Spike, this is a subject that is very personal with me, so I can and do come off pretty aggressive on it.

No offense taken.  I just wanted to be clear where I was coming from.

Gary - the purpose of ICWA -

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a federal law that seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families. Congress passed ICWA in 1978 in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies. The intent of Congress under ICWA was to "protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families" (25 U.S.C. § 1902). ICWA sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe.

ICWA is an integral policy framework on which tribal child welfare programs rely. It provides a structure and requirements for how public and private child welfare agencies and state courts view and conduct their work to serve tribal children and families. It also acknowledges and promotes the role that tribal governments play in supporting tribal families, both on and off tribal lands. However, as is the case with many laws, proper implementation of ICWA requires vigilance, resources, and advocacy.

It worked this time, but there are literally thousands of cases where it is totally ignored.

You know what they say about good intentions ...

The six year old child of course is the one caught in the middle, and also the one that will pay the heaviest price.

We had to petition, asking permission from the Northern Cheyenne tribe (Lame Deer, Montana) to adopt our children. Thankfully they granted us permission.  

The six year old child of course is the one caught in the middle, and also the one that will pay the heaviest price.

Sadly you are right. It's always the child, who doesn't understand why adults who are supposed to be smarter then her, are doing painful things like this to her. She is learning lessons now that she will never forget and will be worse off as an adult because of those lessons.

And this is exactly what happened to Dustin Brown - only the reverse.  ICWA - (SCOTUS) - decided she "should be" with her white parents and not her biological Cherokee parents.

Thank you Roberts and Scalia.

This is what I worry about, in this specific case, what is in the child's best interests?  The Government can't seem to get out of it's own way most of the time, so I have a problem trusting them to make decisions that could easily harm this child's psyche.  And I am speaking specifically of this case.  I understand that the law was built to make sure children were not ripped away form their culture, though it seems like this specific child wasn't ever part of the culture and from what I could glean from the article, may not be going to the native culture, as it's a non-native step-grandparent bringing this action.

See my response above Gary - it may help.  If not, let me know and I'll dust off my ICWA book and muddle through it.

I worry that the 'Law' took a victory over this child's welfare, though I like that she will at least be with her sister(s), though a lot of families pass their relationship issues down through generations in a virtually unbreakable cycle and hope this girl does not become another chapter of dysfunctionality when she didn't need to.

And Larry, I think that I can speak for every Indian on this site, that you did a wonderful thing, and did it the right way.

Absolutely Larry - you are highly respected.

Thank both of you Kavika and 1stwarrior...I am honored.

Some day, the best interests of the child will take precedence over the rights of "Interested political parties"

WE have heard a lot about this over the years up here in the PNW. The child knows no other family than the foster familiy she was ripped away from, it all came about cause the foster family decided to adopt her. That is when the second look was taken under ICWA.

If they had never moved to adopt her this would have never came up.

Today was the day she was taken, and yeah thanks to the supreme court another family lies broken and devastated on the whims of racial political correctness.

The children are the biggest losers here.

They played a recording of the removal on the radio today, the screams of the child and her adoptive siblings, (only brothers and sisters she has ever known) are heart rendering.

Family isn't worth a plugged nickel when it come to political clout.

And she is being given to a family that has never ever seen her and didn't even know about her until the motion to adopt was made. Hell they are not even recognized Indians!

Racial PC gone insane.

The family was told 3 years ago that the child was going to be placed with her family in Utah where she will be reunited with her two sisters.

Can't see anything wrong here.

Oh the irony,

But, I've said my piece, so....

I'll leave it in peace....

Some day, the best interests of the child will take precedence over the rights of "Interested political parties"

As a young child of not just a broken home, but a highly dysfunctional family I can't express in words how hard it is to be fought over or placed with Aunts during custody battles or going to sleep not sure where you're going to wake up in the morning, constantly moved from this parent or grandparent to another. It produces insecurities and scars on any child that goes through it and this girl will need some serious child therapy no matter what the final decision is. To hell with what the adults want! Think of the needs of and what is best for the child only! IMHO moving her is going to seriously damage her.

Very well said Randy, I agree 100%

Very well said Randy, I agree 100%

Thank you. Unfortunately it was said from personal experience...

Yeah I understand, I have some of those troubles in my own family as well so it is a very personal issue with me also. and as a grandparent of a part native grandchild I can get very aggressive about it also. But then again we live in a state where grandparents have no rights at all concerning their descendants.

And the tribes up here, the ones that answer to the states DSHS department Children's administration do not recognize any child less that 1/4 blood. and that caused my beautiful grandaughter to be adopted out of the family.

Damn bloodline racial purity and those that support it.

Yes, 1970's racial politics. can and does destroy families.

Thought you said you said you piece.  Why are you back?

Hey, I can agree with someone that has gone through the same things I have now can't I?

Or is the down side of the racial purity debate something you don't like/want to hear.

Particularly when it works against your position.

Purity????? - Why don't you read the law 'cause it is very, very obvious you have no idea what it is for.

I would prefer you not comment on any Native American article/thread/seed.

Gary - I'm sorry 'bout this comment.

She is being moved back to tie in with her two sisters - that's what family's about also.

     And she is being given to a family that has never ever seen her and didn't even know about her         until the motion to adopt was made. Hell they are not even recognized Indians!

    Racial PC gone insane.

Such incredible stupidity. Reminds me of this quote from Einstein:     

     “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

Not going to take the bait.

Sorry.

read that there is an appeal pending , also read (albeit on a FB petition) that the family she is being placed with is not a blood relation and non native themselves , but a relation through marriage ( a step grandfather?) I think there is more to this story than is being put out there, as for whatever percentage of native blood is the quantum , I was always led to believe 1/4 or more to be enrolled , personally I'm an 1/8th , my kids are 1/16th and my grandkids are 1/32 just from my side of the family and even then its from mixed tribes .

I agree from what I have read on the case there seems to be more to it.  Not sure about the percentage of native blood quantum, I think it may be controlled by the individual tribe.  I am an enrolled Cherokee, with 1/4 and both my children and grandchild are enrolled also.  Many in my family with lesser blood quantum are also enrolled.   

And Jim, you are quite right.  As we found out in the Baby Veronica case, there is much more under the covers.  Why else would they go to the high powered lawyer who ripped Veronica for her biological dad???

"Most" of the Five Civilized Tribes require that a person be a descendant of someone on the Dawes Rolls or one of the rolls utilized in the 1800's when the tribes/nations were relocated.  They don't delineate blood quantum unless you are running for one of the "offices" - Chief, Vice, Chief Justice. 

Until you read the story BF, I'd suggest you quit commenting.

I know this is going to create a lot of hate for me and my positions. but, all this talk about racial purity and percentages of blood has reminded me of others that used such things to judge people.

After a short investigation, simple google search, I got this......

Racial policies regarding the Jews, 1933–1940

Between 1933 and 1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or from moderately minded politicians (although the eugenics program was established as early as July 1933). On August 25, 1933, the Nazis signed the Haavara Agreement with Zionists to allow German Jews to emigrate to Palestine—by 1939, 60,000 German Jews had emigrated there. However, their policy eventually changed to one of total extermination. The Nazi Party used populist anti-semitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment, and the loss of World War I by the "November Criminals" all on the Jews and 'cultural Bolsheviks', the later considered to be in a conspiracy with the Jews. German woes were attributed to the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy. This was at first hindered by the lack of agreement on who qualified as a Jew as opposed to an Aryan, which caused legislators to balk at an anti-Semitic law for its ill-defined terms. Bernhard Lösener described it "total chaos", with local authorities regarding anything from full Jewish background to 1⁄8 Jewish blood defining a Jew; Achim Gercke urged 1⁄16 Jewish blood. Mischlinge were especially problematic in their eyes. The first anti-Semitic law was promulgated with no clear definition of Jew. Finally, the decision was made for three or four Jewish grandparents; two or one rendered a person a Mischlinge. Nazi doctrine culminated in the Holocaust, or so-called "Final Solution", which was made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference.

From wiki of course.

A Mischlinge (plural) of course is the German term for Half-Breeds. they had a number of tests for it. which sound a LOT like a few of the discussions that have taken place here over the last few days about bloodlines and racial purity quantum qualification.

Of course the tribes are already deciding what constitutes an Indian and what doesn't based solely upon percentage of blood parentage.

How is this any different than what the Nazi's started in 1933?

It is stunning to see Native Americans, who are very understanding of the implications of the term "Half-Breed" using the same racial theories as the most vile society the world has ever seen.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

History is a bitch sometimes.

I've read this story several times. It's absolutely appalling ! I thought as a society we put a child's welfare first, that that was always our primary objective. Not here though, just appalling !

100% correct Pat. This is a "To hell with what's best for the child" case from top to bottom! Disgusting!

Pat - I'd recommend you read other links that have been posted -  indiancountrytodaymedianetwork

That is the most screwed up logic I've ever seen. Trying to compare Indians to Nazi's is even low for you NWM, but not unexpected.

You do know that the U.S. government is responsible for the blood quantum laws don't you?

Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are those enacted in the United States and the former colonies to define qualification by ancestry as Native American , sometimes in relation to tribal membership. It ignored the Native American practices of absorbing other peoples by adoption, beginning with other Native Americans, and extending to children and young adults of European and African ancestry. It also ignored tribal cultural continuity after tribes had absorbed such adoptees and mixed-race children.

By your logic the US government are Nazi's...

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. History is a bitch isn't it.

No, Native Americans are not Nazis. I reject that completely. That said they are completely 100% wrong in this case! They are handing her off to some almost random family member who are not Natives and are related simply by marriage, just because her Native father says so.

Not comparing Indians to Nazi's, just pointing out that the arguments made here over the last few days are the EXACT same ones used in Germany in the '30's to promote racial division.

HISTORICAL FACT.

Explain that away.

If that is racist, (Nazi's racial theories and implementations in the 30's) then the same arguments promulgated here are racist.

Call me what ever you want. All your showing is I hit the nail on the head and you don't like it.

Nice try NWM...as always you try to twist things to make them the way you want them to be.

The US Government instituted the blood quantum...Explain that away.

Don't have to, remember I mentioned the 3/5th compromise? Racist from the start.

This government has always had a racist component to it. it's one of the things that Thomas Jefferson plainly said was one of the worst mistakes the constitutional convention made in writing that document.

So the fact that they put a racist law into effect placating special interests is not surprising. Neither is their desires to cover up such enactment by calling it a civil rights law.

You want my honest opinion? do away with all special laws benefiting one race over another. In the case of the native Americans, do away with the RES, make ALL Indians full US citizens. with full rights and appurtenances appropriate for such status.

End the special rights for special people paradigm that has been created in our government over the last few decades.

And it's amazing how many people forget that Hitler admired the American genocide system so much that he copied it to apply to the Jewish population.

'Course, the U. S. only killed/massacred 120M Native Americans - Hitler only killed/massacred 6M.

Now we are getting somewhere. Recognition that the American system of government can be used to promote racism is a great first step.

Now to get people to admit that that is what they are actually doing is another. You would have to admit that racism travels both ways.

We will get there some day.

Oh, historical accuracy here is paramount.

He (and Nazism) is credited with 6-8 million Jews, but well over 120 million other lesser people.(but not until it kicked into high gear in '40)

And I think the 120 million NA's killed is a compendium total, ie over the entire history of the Euro's on north american soil. (some 400 years and not all the American Government without an official policy of racial extermination)

He (and Nazism) is credited with 6-8 million Jews, but well over 120 million other lesser people.(but not until it kicked into high gear in '40)

Where are you coming up with that sort of figure?

Your correct, I added two figures I shouldn't have, the actual total of WWII deaths is 60 million.

Which of course I attribute to the Nazi's, who started the killing in the first place.

WWII Casualties

More or less. 10-15 million of the ww2 dead are accounted for by the Japanese aggression, which was more or less concurrent with Germany's.

I am going to approach this a little differently.

1/64th means that one, and only one, of her great-great-great-great-great grandparents, of which there were 64, was American Indian.

That is not enough of a percentage to effect where the child should live. I may very well be 1/64th American Indian, because there was talk among one side of my family from great aunts and uncles and so forth that they had been told there was American Indian heritage in the family. If I am 1/64th Indian, it is not something I have ever pursued knowledge of because I don't think going back six generations to find one ancestor of out sixty four that meets a certain criteria proves anything.

I hear those who are saying , in effect, rules are rules, and that may be. But it doesn't make it right in such a case as this.

Damn! John and I are actually going to agree on something!

On this one you are 100% correct.