How to Use this Blog

Howdy! We've amassed tons of information and important history on this blog since 2010. If you have a keyword, use the search box below. Also check out the reference section above. If you have a question or need help searching, use the contact form at the bottom of the blog.

ALSO, if you buy any of the books at the links provided, the editor will earn a small amount of money or commission. (we thank you) (that is our disclaimer statement)

This is a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a sponsored publication... The ideas, news and thoughts posted are sourced… or written by the editor or contributors.

2017: 3/4 million Visitors/Readers! This blog was ranked #49 in top 100 blogs about adoption. Let's make it #1...

Search This Blog

Standing Rock

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Alaska Supreme Court: Native child can be adopted by non-Native family #BABYDAWN


ANCHORAGE — In a split decision, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled against the village of Tununak, which was appealing a lower court’s decision that allowed an Alaska Native infant to be adopted by non-Native parents rather than giving custody to her extended biological family in the tiny Western Alaska community.
The Supreme Court’s ruling this month upholds an earlier Superior Court ruling that concerns about the baby girl’s well-being trumped legal preferences built into a federal law designed to keep children from being adopted away from their Native American communities when possible.
Citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a similar case, three of the Alaska Supreme Court justices said the lower court was correct in letting a non-Native couple in Anchorage adopt the girl, because an approved member of her biological family had not officially filed to adopt her. Two of the justices disagreed, saying that was not enough reason to override the Native preference.
According to the state Supreme Court opinion released Sept. 12, this is what happened: The Office of Children’s Services took custody of the girl — called by the pseudonym “Dawn” to protect her true identity — in July of 2008, when she was 4 months old. There is little mention of the reason for that action in the Supreme Court opinion, but Dawn’s mother apparently suffered from mental health issues and drug addiction. There is no mention of her father in the 41-page opinion.
Because Dawn’s biological parents were Alaska Native, a provision of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act said that state officials had to consider putting her in the custody of a member of her extended family, with other members of her tribe, or with another Native family.
One option for Dawn was her grandmother, whom Tununak tribal officials put forward as a candidate to adopt Dawn. But in meetings about putting Dawn into foster care with the grandmother, the Office of Children’s Services learned an adult son lived in the house, and his particular criminal history meant Dawn could not live there. So for foster care, Dawn was placed with a family in Anchorage, where her biological mother lived and could visit her.
In August of 2009, the grandmother told the state social workers that her son had moved out and that she was still interested in being Dawn’s foster care guardian. That December, a representative from the Association of Village Council Presidents, working on behalf of the Office of Children’s Services, visited the grandmother’s home in Tununak and noted some problems.
“These included unsecured guns, cleaning supplies, medicine, and general clutter in the area that (the grandmother) planned to use as Dawn’s bedroom,” the Supreme Court opinion says.
In February 2010, the grandmother said she would take care of the problems in her house, but she had still not done so by that May, and she inquired about the possibility of Dawn being returned to her mother.
A Superior Court judge disagreed, saying that would not happen because of the mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues, and ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights in September 2011.
With a decision pending on a new request by the tribe for preferential placement under the Indian Child Welfare Act, the foster family in Anchorage filed to adopt Dawn.
The grandmother, now with renewed interest, testified at a subsequent court hearing on the adoption that it was her right to adopt and raise the girl as an Alaska Native, “because she is part of my flesh and blood and so that she can learn her values in Native culture and traditions and where she came from.”
But the Superior Court judge said the grandmother’s testimony had been “less than convincing” and that she only wanted to adopt Dawn because it was what the tribe wanted. In March of 2012, the judge gave custody of Dawn to the Anchorage family. She was nearly 4 years old at that point.
The tribe appealed the decision, and, in the meantime, a similar case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. That custody case resulted in the justices finding that the Native-placement preference did not apply.
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote “this is because there simply is no ‘preference’ to apply if no alternative party that is eligible to be preferred … has come forward.”
In the Alaska case, Dawn’s grandmother had stopped pursuing custody, and nobody else from her family or tribe had filed an adoption petition, the majority of Alaska Supreme Court justices wrote in their opinion. Therefore, giving custody to the Anchorage family was the right thing to have done, wrote justices Dana Fabe, Peter Maassen and Joel Bolger.
Two justices, Daniel Winfree and Craig Stowers, disagreed. In their dissenting opinion, Winfree wrote that the other justices had overstated the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court decision and understated the adoption proceedings in the case involving Dawn and Tununak. And the justices in the majority were wrong in saying Dawn’s grandmother did not make an effort to adopt the girl just because she did not file formal paperwork to do so, Winfree wrote, calling the majority’s opinion an “adherence to form over substance.”
“If Dawn’s grandmother is a suitable adoptive placement, then, in light of (the Native preference law) and absent good cause to deviate from its preferences, the current adoption should be vacated and Dawn should be placed with her grandmother for eventual tribal or state court adoption,” Winfree wrote.
Alaska Federation of Natives President Julie Kitka said Monday the federation’s members were worried about the precedent the state Supreme Court’s decision would set.
“This decision is a disservice to our children,” Kitka said in a written statement. “The formal petition for adoption is a very complicated process that requires the assistance of a lawyer that the majority of Alaska Native families cannot easily afford.”

Staff writer Casey Grove is the News-Miner’s Anchorage reporter. Contact him at 770-0722 or follow on Twitter: @kcgrove.

National Native News coverage

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please: Share your reaction, your thoughts, and your opinions. Be passionate, be unapologetic. Offensive remarks will not be published. We are getting more and more spam. Comments will be monitored.

Every. Day.

Every. Day.
adoptees take back adoption narrative and reject propaganda

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

Three Years already

Join!

National Indigenous Survivors of Child Welfare Network (NISCWN)

Membership Application Form

The Network is open to all Indigenous and Foster Care Survivors any time.

The procedure is simple: Just fill out the form HERE.

Source Link: NICWSN Membership

Customer Review

Thought-provoking and moving 11 October 2012
Two Worlds - Lost children of the Indian Adoption Projects

If you thought that ethnic cleansing was something for the history books, think again. This work tells the stories of Native American Indian adoptees "The Lost Birds" who continue to suffer the effects of successive US and Canadian government policies on adoption; policies that were in force as recently as the 1970's. Many of the contributors still bear the scars of their separation from their ancestral roots. What becomes apparent to the reader is the reality of a racial memory that lives in the DNA of adoptees and calls to them from the past.
The editors have let the contributors tell their own stories of their childhood and search for their blood relatives, allowing the reader to gain a true impression of their personalities. What becomes apparent is that nothing is straightforward; re-assimilation brings its own cultural and emotional problems. Not all of the stories are harrowing or sad; there are a number of heart-warming successes, and not all placements amongst white families had negative consequences. But with whom should the ultimate decision of adoption reside? Government authorities or the Indian people themselves? Read Two Worlds and decide for yourself.

Read this SERIES

Read this SERIES
click image

ADOPTION TRUTH

As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.”
The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.

Our Fault? (no)

Leland at Goldwater Protest

#defendicwa

A photo posted by defendicwa (@defendicwa) on