Case Name: Mississippi of Choctaw Indians V. Holyfield
Facts:
Large numbers of Indian children were being separated from their families and their tribes. These children were unfairly placed into non-Indian homes; through the process of state adoption. Parental rights termination was also taken into effect. Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) gave tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over custody proceedings involving and Indian child who lives in a tribes’ reservation. This case involved twin illegitimate babies. The parents of the babies were enrolled members of appellant Tribe. The twins were adopted, and given to a non-Indian family 200 miles away from the reservation. In the court’s findings, the parents had never been physically present; therefore the children were voluntarily surrendered by their parents.
Background of Case:
Mississippi of Choctaw Indians V. Holyfield involves the issue of ICWA pertaining to this case of adoptive children. Jennie Bell is a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; which is federally recognized. Jennie Bell was pregnant with twins. The father of the twins however was a man who was married and had children of his own with his wife. Since she was an unemployed woman she knew she was not going to have the economic resources to raise two children on her own, so she turned to her family and the Choctaws on her reservation. Although she did seek help from her family and others from her reservation, there was no one that was willing to take in her two children.
When a couple, the Holyfields, heard about the children, they immediately looked into their adoption. This non-Indian couple adopted the children. The court issued a legal order of adoption in 1986. The Choctaw tribe stated that the ...
... middle of paper ...
...oluntarily. In other words, they were in a way legally abandoned.
My Comments:
The high amount of children that were given into adoption to non-Indian families in history took part in turning points not only for those children being adopted, but also those reservations that have been impacted by the removal of their people from the reservation. What has been done is irreversible, but now can be prevented from it occurring to any other families in the United States.
To a certain extent I can agree to the Supreme Courts rule in who gets custody of the children. The mother of the two children did give them up without thinking of the consequences of her actions. The ICWA however has helped many people in their cases and selected rulings. Although we cannot reverse the past, there is still ways we can incorporate our support in correcting the way the system works.
The term “Sixties Scoop,” was created by the writer, Patrick Johnson, to describe “the taking of thousands of Native children from their families, communities, and peoples during the 1960s to early 1980s” (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, 274). In the 1960’s, the government generally believed that an extension of child welfare services to reserves would be a practical approach to solving some of the problems on reserves. Although the social services may have had good intentions, “little attention was paid to the effect that extending provincial services would have on Indian families and communities [and there did not appear] to be any concern that provincial services might not be compatible with the needs of Indian communities” (Lloyd 2009). The majority of children that were placed for adoption were relocated to distant communities, different provinces and some were also placed in the United States to the dwellings of middle class Caucasian families.
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
It had previously been the policy of the American government to remove and relocate Indians further and further west as the American population grew, but there was only so much...
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
Each year, there are thousands of children that are misplaced from their families and are seeking a permanent living placement. Their permanent placement may be found with family members or friends, or even through a private adoption. There are federal laws and state mandates that are implemented to ensure that the best interests of all children involved in an adoption or placement proceedings are heard. The best interests and needs of a child may include educational needs, medical needs, housing/placement preferences, or finding a family that reflects the ethnic and cultural heritage of the child in question. One federal mandate ensures that the heritage and familial background of children is protected and the best interests of the children are served. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 is a federal law that seeks to keep Indian-American children with Indian-American families. This law was created in response to an overwhelming population of Indian-American children being displaced from their families. This law was created to protect youth and help keep Indian-American children with their native tribes. In this paper, we explore the historical factors leading to the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the purpose of this Act. Further, we explore the development of this law, implementation of this federal law, and the contemporary debates that relate to the implementation of this law.
Corbett, B. (1999). Last call in Pine Ridge For the Lakota’s in White Clay, Nebraska, death is on the house. Retrieved February 6, 2005, from http://ishgooda.org/oglala/whitcla1.htm
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
The goal of Juvenile Courts and the Child Welfare Agencies is to protect and make decision in the best interest of children. The ASFA law was signed by President Bill Clinton. On November 19, 1997 after it was approved by the United States Congress earlier in the month. The law was the most significant piece of legislation dealing with child welfare in twenty years. States decided to interpret the law as requiring biological families to be kept together no matter what, but the law shifted emphasis towards children health and safety concerns and away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents without regards to their prior abuse. ASFA lead sponsor, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island said, “We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of biological parents first … It’s time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.” This phil...
In 2002, 51,000 children were adopted through the foster care system. The federal government tracks the number of adoptions from the United States foster care system, and all of its international adoptions. It’s estimated that around 120,000 children are adopted by U.S citizens each year. Half of these children are adopted by individuals not related to t...
...Interests of Birth Parents and Adult Adoptees. Willian and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 11, 461-480.
Each year, there are thousands of children that are misplaced from their families and are seeking a permanent living placement. Their permanent placement may be found with family members or friends, or even through a private adoption. There are federal laws and state mandates that are implemented to ensure that the best interests of all children involved in an adoption or placement proceedings are heard. The best interests and needs of a child may include educational needs, medical needs, housing/placement preferences, or finding a family that reflects the ethnic and cultural heritage of the child in question. One federal mandate ensures that the heritage and familial background of children is protected and the best interests of the children are served. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 is a federal law that seeks to keep Indian-American children with Indian-American families. This law was created in response to an overwhelming population of Indian-American children being displaced from their families. This law was created to protect youth and help keep Indian-American children with their native tribes. In this paper, we explore the historical factors leading to the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the purpose of this Act. Further, we explore the development of this law, implementation of this federal law, and the contemporary debates that relate to the implementation of this law.
The Dawes Allotment Act of 1887 brought about the policy of Cultural Assimilation for the Native American peoples. Headed by Richard Henry Pratt, it founded several Residential Schools for the re-education and civilization of Native Americans. Children from various tribes and several reservations were removed from their families with the goal of being taught how to be c...
As issues that affect children enthuse intense interest and emotion it is unsurprising that transracial adoption; the joining together of racially or ethnically different parents and children in an adoptive family, is a subject that is fraught with controversy. Transracial adoption not only raises the question of the how much power should the state have to affect individual choices with respect to family life it also questions the level of state assistance given to families in trouble before removing parents from their parents. It also highlights issue of race within the context of the family with advocates seeing trans-racial adoption as a harbinger of hope, believing that if different races can love each other as a family then there is hope for the relationship between different races in society (Moe, 2007; Perry, 1996). Whereas, radical opponents claim that white society is racist and that transracial adoption is a hostile manifestation of white power and believe that ethnic minority communities should have the right to decide the fate of ethnic minority children (Hayes, 1995).
The most common fate of orphaned children was to be "adopted" by another family. This allowed for the orphans to remain a part of a fami...