ICWA is the Indian Child Welfare Act. It allows sovereign tribes to decide the fate of infants with Indian blood who are being placed for adoption. I believe the original intent of the law was to allow Native American tribes to retain their culture and keep their tribes from being disbanded. Interestingly, much has changed over the years since ICWA was enacted. Tribes are no longer poor due to tribal gaming. This has had an impact on Native American children in a number of ways. A Native American birth mother or a woman who is having a child by a Native American father can be forced to place her child within the tribe or parent even if she is not prepared to do so. I think that this is a violation of her rights as a mother. She can choose to abort the baby, but she has no say where it goes if she gives it life. I do understand the tribal perspective in terms of culture and maintenance of tribal customs, but with each generation we all become more mixed and intertwined with other races. How pure of race is anyone? I can trace my own roots back to a Palous Indian chief, but I don't have tribal benefits.
Just this week, a tribe intervened and didn't allow an adoption that was planned by the birth mother. They decided that they wanted to keep the child within the tribe. She felt forced to do what the tribe dictated, rather than take the baby home -- something that she wasn't prepared to do. She was asking for support because she couldn't feed the kids she had. I wonder where the tribe was when she was pregnant. While I respect the right of a tribe to maintain their heritage, I don't feel it's fair to a birth mother to make the decisions for her. Not that life is fair, but each tribe treats it differently, which means women in the same situation are treated differently depending upon the tribe. I've only had two or three situations in my career where a tribe actually intervened.
I do find it interesting that tribal gaming has changed the way ICWA is administered and there is no consistency across the tribal lines. Some wealthy tribes don't get involved but, rather, allow the birth mother to make her own adoption plan. Why? Because another tribal member means another way to split the pie -- the income that is generated with tribal gaming. It means less for them, so they throw out the concept of retaining tribal members within the tribe. The importance of tribal culture that they fought so hard to retain is simply discarded in favor of the almighty dollar.
In California, a well-known tribe excommunicated over a dozen members who could trace their roots and had been in the tribe their entire lives. This tribe went back several generations to question whether an ancestor was entitled to membership back then. Because they are a sovereign nation, they could decide who was a member and who wasn't. They chose to disenfranchise and de-legitimize people who had been tribal members since birth. These Native Americans were good enough to be considered tribal members until there was money from tribal gaming to be split.
Tribal traditions, culture, and heritage are being polluted by power and money. Doesn't everyone deserve the same opportunity to decide what's best for their child? I think we're dealing with human rights here as much as we are sovereign nations. Does the tribe trump basic human rights? I've had Native American women tell me that they absolutely don't want their child to be raised on the reservation, as alcoholism is so prevalent. Yet, if a woman belongs to a certain tribe, they will decide for her where the baby goes. Shouldn't that be her call? There is only a baby because SHE chose to carry it. Could this possibly contribute to a woman's decision to have an abortion? I believe so. I wonder how many Native American babies lost their lives because of this very issue. I think ICWA was enacted for good reason, but circumstances aren't the same in current times. I think that today ICWA is no longer viable and the issue of Native American Indians and adoption should be revisited. It's time to give every woman the right to choose a home for her child. We certainly give women choices that carry much more dire consequences for both mother and child.
4 comments:
That is so sad....and I am sure frustrating for birthmothers that really want to make a plan. I can see where there would have been a definite purpose at one time. It just makes me so sad that a birth mother would not be able to make the plan she chooses, only one that is chosen for her in some cases.
You said that perfectly Tina. I agree that in these current times, that the tribe shouldn't be allowed to make a decision for a birthmother. After going through it personally with our failed adoption, I felt incredibly sad for our birthmother because she wasn't Native American, but baby was part, and she had NO rights. That is against human rights, indian or not.
Heather:
When you say "in practice", I'm not sure that is correct. Perhaps "in theory" would be a better assessment. Most of the time, the tribes have no interest in the child. Only twice in my 15 years of doing adoptions have tribes expressed interest in retaining a tribal member.
In the first case, the tribe gave initial consent and then withdrew their consent once the baby was born and the adoption plan was in place. The adoptive parents had the baby in their arms. Ironically, after making such a fuss (and it was public, with the birth mother actually retaining an attorney), they had no one within the tribe who wanted to adopt the baby. That child ended up being handed over to the state and became a ward of the state in foster care. How is that beneficial to that child and how did the child receive any cultural benefits from that?
In the second case, which happened recently, both parents were tribal members. Both specifically asked that the baby NOT be placed with a reservation family. They were both raised ther and felt that there was too much alcoholism and domestic abuse. The tribe overruled their personal decisions about what was best for their child. Had they wanted to abort the baby, the tribe would have no say. However, if they want to preserve that life and give that child a better life than they had, they have no right to do so. The tribe intervened. I'm not sure that's a healthy alternative for the child.
I am all for children remaining with their tribe and retaining their native culture. I was raised in Oklahoma and I am part Native American myself. However,I don't think anyone can make a blanket statement that the tribe is always the best place for a Native American child. It depends entirely upon the tribe.
I have seen tribal gaming change everything. Once a tribe is wealthy, they tend not to want to share the wealth with an additional member, and that child's exposure to Native culture becomes less important to the tribe than it was before. If you work in adoption, you see this. I admit that I care more about what's best for the baby than what's best for the tribe. Most tribes are no longer pure in blood and are as mixed as the rest of Americans. I think the child's welfare should be the primary and most important focus. When a child lands in foster care with the state because the tribe was simply exercising their tribal muscles, that just seems wrong. ICWA was designed for a purpose that is no longer adhered to. I know how it should be. I also know that's not how it plays out and the children are the ones paying the price.
I am fairly certain a large number of Native American children have lost their lives to abortion due to the fact that their mothers don't want to tangle with the tribe, for both personal and familial reasons. How does that preserve tribal culture?
Heather: I apologize. I accidentally deleted your post after authorizing it because I was trying to delete a duplicate post (the one below it. I haven't figured out how to get it back, so your original post is below, cut and pasted from the e-mail:
HeatherZ has left a new comment on your post "ICWA and Tribal Gaming":
Are you suggesting that tribes only have a defensible interest in perpetuating their culture if they are poor?
You are over-stating the case with regard to the birth-mother and the adoption. The way ICWA works, in practice, is that the tribe can work with the birth-mother to approve a placement that is culturally appropriate for the child. This ensures that the tribe's interest and child's interest in remaining connected to her tribe and culture is protected. It is exactly designed to prevent the problem you state of losing identity as a result of "becoming more mixed."
You have no idea what the child is missing out on by being separated from her tribe. Or what the tribe misses out on by being separated from the child. It could be anything from from identity, community and culture to treaty-payments and educational support. The point of ICWA is to ensure the tribe makes these decisions with the birth-mother because a) it is their right as sovereign nations and b) they know best what the child will be missing without them.
Post a Comment