Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Crom_3 t1_ivgir7r wrote

Native children should be placed with Native foster parents of the same tribe whenever possible. I think we can all agree upon that. But the cases were talking about and the people suing are white families that have native children. These kids are in happy homes with loving parents, but the tribes think preserving those children's culture is worth ripping those children away from the only parents they've ever known. The trauma you cause a young child when you rip it away from its mother and father is devastating, and the child may never recover.

There needs to be flexibility in the system. Make every attempt to place a native child with a native family. But if you have a native child that's grown up with a set of white parents. And those parents are loving and they're well taken care of and a happy home, don't rip them out of that family and cause them devastating trauma for the sake of preserving their heritage. It's just not worth it.

9

cuentaderana t1_ivgji45 wrote

I don’t agree. There’s too much room for abuse in saying that a native child placed with white parents for an extended period of time should stay there. What would stop a state from placing a native child in foster care while they “look” for relatives and drag their feet until it’s too late? Or what would stop a white family from appealing in family court to try and keep a native child who is going to be placed with relatives/a tribal member until it’s “too late” (this happened in CA btw, a white family sued to try and keep a native child placed temporarily in their care until family could be found, and they managed to drag the process out for years so they could claim they were the only family the now toddler ever knew).

33

SofieTerleska t1_ivhyl8h wrote

That's the reason the Brackeen lawsuit exists, though -- the authorities did find a Native foster family for one of their foster children when she was quite young and they were suing to prevent her being taken there. On a human level, I understand that it's awful to say goodbye to the baby you've cared for. But they signed up for foster parenting, they had to take classes, and they either learned about how ICWA works there or they had terrible instructors. Foster parents aren't usually able to adopt for a lot of reasons, not just ICWA -- this is literally what they signed up for.

14

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivlecvh wrote

The child should not have been placed with the Brackeens, especially given their hostility towards a law preserving culture.

The reason they have "grown up" with this white foster family is due to their unethical behavior and fighting the tribe.

8

Crom_3 t1_ivlwrdw wrote

Yes, that may have been a mistake. But, do we traumatize these kids by ripping them away from the only loving parents and happy home they know to fix that mistake? Or do we leave them in that loving home, and work harder to bettet place native children in native homes going forward?

−3

[deleted] t1_ivlx7uo wrote

[removed]

6

Crom_3 t1_ivndu3w wrote

I get it. You believe those kids being raised by a native family is important enough to forcible remove them from the only loving family they've ever known and very likely traumatize them severely. Those kids don't understand that they should have been placed with a native family to ensure they are raised native. They only know that you are taking them away from the mother, father and family they love by force.

Talk about what should have and could have happened all day. Bring up the ridiculous parallels to kidnapped children. But just understand that those kids welfare isn't your first consideration. Making sure their parents have the correct ethnicity is.

3

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivne2jb wrote

You are the one not caring about these kids well being. They are kidnappers, their behavior is traumatizing these children. This is not about race, these children are being treated as a commodity by the Brackeens

1

chiseledarrow t1_ivglv98 wrote

Says the non-native.

−2

hawklost t1_ivgtz23 wrote

Do you think it's ok to segregate children based on their parents race, sexual orientation, religion and/or ancestry?

Because effectively what you are implying is that native children are only OK to be with native parents. Which logically would fit the same with any race or religion argument for segregation of the child.

−4

344dead t1_ivgvzr5 wrote

I think there is more nuance than what you're making out. We committed genocide against natives including taken kids from homes and having them raised by white parents to "take the savage out of them". This wasn't all that long ago too. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here. Just saying there are other factors worth considering.

24

RetardedJoy t1_ivh3mew wrote

If anyone had bothered to read what this case is really about, this excerpt sums it up well enough:

At the core of the disagreement is whether the term “Indian” is a racial or political classification. Those who would repeal the ICWA view “Indian” as a racial classification, and therefore argue the ICWA is racially discriminatory and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. To the contrary, I argue in the following that “Indian” is best interpreted as a political classification for purposes of the ICWA, as evidenced by both the historical context of Indians in the U.S. and the ICWA’s provisions, which manifest congressional intent to protect tribes as political units. Any argument against the ICWA should address “Indian” as a political classification, because to do otherwise is to ignore the major political issue at stake: tribal sovereignty. (Source: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cg

Additional Sources:

Tribes are governments, NOT racial categories; Indian Law Resource Center;

ICWA is being used to undermine tribal sovereignty and self-determination ACLU

14

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivlency wrote

ICWA is not about race, it is about Citizenship in a tribe.

Should someone from Korea be allowed to adopt a US citizen without consulting the US government?

4

hawklost t1_ivlj6yk wrote

If the child has citizenship in both Korea and the US, yes. They are a child of both nations.

Or would you say it was OK for the US to adopt a child who is of both citizenships in the US but not Korea. Or maybe you would say that that child cannot be adopted at all since it requires consent of both nations.

1

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivljjli wrote

Saying that both nations need to consent to the adoption is reasonable.

1

hawklost t1_ivlkl88 wrote

And so if one nation says no then the child cannot be adopted at all?

The problem with needing both nations consent is the assumption that both nations will agree.

1

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivll5cf wrote

They are both approving the selection of adoptive parents, not denying adoption period.

Contrary to popular belief, children are not denied adoptive homes due to ICWA. They simply have family and native homes prioritized. Tribes aprove adoption by non Indian or non family all the time.

And they prioritize white family members over non family members too.

The choice is not this child will not have a home or will be adopted by white couples.

2