Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling in the Brackeen case, in which some non-Natives are challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which, among other things, gives preference to Native families in the adoption of Native children. Broadly, the Fifth Circuit found ICWA constitutional, but the court ruled that ICWA goes too far in requiring states to enforce it.
26 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting ICWA and Native claims. In their December 2019 brief, those ICWA-friendly states note that they are home to 94% of federally recognized tribes and 69% of the total American Indian and Alaska Native population.
South Dakota has 1.3% of the nation’s Native population. South Dakota itself is 10% Indian. South Dakota did not join the amicus brief to defend the Indian Child Welfare Act. Our neighbors in Minnesota, Iowa, and Montana did, but we did not… because apparently, South Dakota is not a friend of Indians, children, welfare, or action.
Does whitey get paid well to foster Native kids?
That’s because your Governor believes Indian families are sub-standard units and getting an Indian child away from that sub-standard environment is as vitally important as impeding women’s rights.
It’s about the children, isn’t it Governor. Not your learned bias toward anything or anyone different than you.
Hallelujah, Kristi “White Savior” Noem
Mr. mike, grudznick knows some white people (we don’t call them racist names here, this is not Iowa) who get paid well to foster American Indian children who were taken away from an abusive environment where their parents sexually abused them and neglected their need for food, shelter, and love.
So yes. I will pass on your Iowegian name-calling and disdain for the situation those kids are in. Heck, maybe we can send them to your house. In….IOWA.
mr. grudznick … How do you know private government information that minors were removed from an abusive environment where their parents sexually abused them and neglected their need for food, shelter, and love. -That’s restricted government data and you either broke the law by illegally viewing and repeating it or you’re telling a big, fat, whopper of a lie.
-Tell the people you’re just exaggerating and feeding your bias against Indians, again. We’ll believe that.
Mr. Lansing, let me repeat:
Read it again. These people are personal friends of grudznick. You want to complain about grudznick? Call The Man.
You want to hang with your racist Iowegian buddy, knock yourself out.
You want to come to my friends house and dine with these wonderful children, park your racist bullsh!t at the door and mind your f.u.c.king manners, you POS.
Got all your goats and you’re still a liar …
Why does anyone bother to respond to anything grudzfecal says? It should be obvious by now that the POS has no position on anything except the position of gaslighting.
Grutz is probably a personal friend and dining partner of Ted Klaudt.
I mean, ICWA does have very real problems. The mandate in favor of native families has taken children who were being cared for in loving families and put them in a household where a family member was actively abusing drugs because, apparently, this is good for the child when the family member is native. And this is all being done FOR THE BENEFIT of native kids? I’ve seen it happen several times. I get ICWA’s purpose and think it is a laudable one, but ffs, it is really hurting some native children.
Oh, and I have seen it because my wife is a social worker who has worked on and around the rez. Just putting that out there because apparently talking about the issue makes you a liar.
Dicta – You’re an attorney. You know that if your wife saw a crime take place, you didn’t see it. That’s hearsay.
Tell us when, where, and whom she saw using drugs around an adopted Indian minor.
You’ve already told one lie. “Oh, and I have seen it ”
That makes you a liar.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar.” — Porter, probably
And I am not a practicing attorney, but thanks. I left the practice of law nearly a decade ago and have never practiced in South Dakota. Further, hearsay are out of court statements being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and are only prevented from being used in a legal setting. This is a forum. I can reference hearsay all I want.
Hey, also Dicta, doxx your wife to settle an internet argument, please! — also Porter
Just stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t happen, bud. It’s always nice when a walking example of horseshoe theory posts.
I’m sure it happens from time to time, Dicta. It’s unfortunate. That doesn’t mean ICWA shouldn’t be followed. There are a lot of white families with the same substance abuse problems. When we strip the white kids from their families and ship them to the rez is when we can think about ending the ICWA.
The issue is pretty clear. White culture has always tried to “solve” the “problems” of Indians by splitting children them from their families and their culture. It didn’t work when whites split up families to send the kids to boarding school. We should learn from the past mistakes and not repeat them.
I don’t mean to say that South Dakota hasn’t abused native families, and natives generally, to such an extent that I get why ICWA was made. It would be ahistorical and dumb to claim otherwise. What I am saying is that ICWA does need some fixing, at least on the enforcement side. The cure is definitely NOT worse than the disease it was developed to cure, but I’m not comfortable saying it’s fine as is. That being said, I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to Noem because she has shown herself to be a completely political creature whose first considerations seem to typically be whether or not it will resonate with Trump’s national base.
It is always mistake to stereotype any group of people, such a Native Americans, based upon the experiences with a few members of that group. Natives, like everyone else have a few bad actors. Neither ICWA nor any tribal law that I am aware of permits, let alone “mandates,” placing Native children “in a household where a family member was actively abusing drugs.” If Dicta’s spouse saw some such incidents, then under both ICWA and tribal law that should have been reported to authorities, and both ICWA and tribal law currently require those authorities to take the necessary steps to protect the children, including removing the children from that Native American family. There is no ICWA “mandate” to take any “children who were being cared for in loving families” and place them in any unsafe circumstances.
Relying on such negative anecdotal evidence to either stereotype Native families, non-native foster families, or any one else, or to justify a claim “ICWA does have very real problems,” is an all too common and unfortunate reaction of too many people. If ICWA did require placement with a Native family with members actively abusing drugs, then such language should be repealed or changed. I have read the ICWA multiple times and could find no such language or requirement. Maybe I missed something?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-21
And to the extent anecdotal evidence is even relevant, I have personal experience with Native familes, Native children, ICWA, and the SD state courts, and have personally seen numerous Native families provide alcohol and drug free, safe and loving homes for Native children removed from foster care and returned to Native families. I have no dog in this fight, so when evaluating the weight of anedotal observations I would hope my supportive personal observations are entitled to just as much weight as the negative personal observations of anyone else.
You and I both know that a law can be illegal based purely on its language or illegal based on how it is enforced. Further, I never said ICWA mandates such placement, or explicitly allows it in its language, but that such things have happened under the power of the statute. Also, it’s so weird how, despite numerous acknowledgments that white people have victimized native families time and time again, the moment you point out the lived experience of people impacted by the manner in which the law is enforced you are just stereotyping natives. I never said anything about the native people generally, so I’d appreciate such bs not being attributed to me.
Grudzilla”s hideous true colors come shining through. Need to touch moar nerves moar often.
well…I think Dicta’s point is well taken…we need to do a lot of work on our foster care system, whether native or white, tribal or state run, to overcome the devastation that alcohol and drugs do to families, of all kinds.We still lose a lot of kids to suicide, drug abuse, and various dysfunction and end up putting them in prison as we’ve created no other early intervention or prevention. We need to get to work, folks.
Dicta, I would disagree that “a law can be . . . illegal based on how it is enforced.” Certainly anyone’s conduct violating that law can be illegal, but that alone doesn’t make the law bad or even ineffective. A law doesn’t magically turn bad because it is disobeyed or because it is not properly enforced.
I am glad that you didn’t intend to stereotype Natives. I read your comment and examples as stereotyping Natives because ICWA only deals with Native children and families.
Unfortunately, there also have been even more occasions when a non-native or Native child has been mistakenly placed with non-native parents or relatives, only to later discover that a member of that family abuses alcohol, drugs, or worse, the children. SD has had some horrendous public examples of highly abusive non-native foster parents, such as Ted Kludt or the BHSU professional couple who caged and tortured kids. I see see no rational reason to claim when this happens with a Native family under ICWA it is the fault of that statutory scheme, but when it happens with a non-native household under state law no similar question is raised about the appropriateness of state laws relied upon to place these children in inappropriate households.
You are an amazing person bearcreekbat. Your ability to articulate the issues on DFP really inform me. Thank you. And I feel for Dicta and his wife. But keeping score just doesn’t work when it comes to ICWA. There are too many scenarios in too many unique situations to make anyone’s opinion or view the absolute. ICWA was passed because there were some real problems. It’s far from perfect for sure. Nothing is. I do appreciate the concern of all the commenters here for the innocent children involved.
Right on, Spike. This issue exemplifies the white male need to be a “problem solver”, at all times. When there’s ambiguity, the white male can’t solve the problem and must pick a side (usually the red neck absolutist side) and goes all ride or die, right or wrong claiming 100% infallibility . We see that fully here in grudz and dicta spouting emotional foolishness, making things up attempting to bolster an untenable position, and being admonished by those able to see the uncertainty of finding an absolute.
Thanks for your kind words Spike.
There is a lot that bothered me about your post, BCB.
1. You intimated that discussing violations of ICWA stereotyped natives because ICWA only deals with natives. This makes zero sense. If I had made claims that all or most natives violated ICWA, I might get your point. Here, I referred to a couple examples my wife had personal experience with and you somehow attribute it to all Sioux? What are you talking about?
2. You asserted that it’s only when bad things happen under ICWA that people discuss the problems with the underlying law. Bull. I don’t know what parallel universe you live in, but it is not at all uncommon in the one I reside in for public outcry when adopted children are subject to abuse or neglect. I wholly reject this point as disingenuous at best. You brought up a couple examples of this very thing yourself.
Dicta, I admit my comments are not always accurate or well written and that you are not the first commenter to point out that you meant something different with a comment than I thought you meant (Kurt Evans often took that position in our discussions). And I do appreciate your willingness to help clarify your points through our ongoing discussion.
Perhaps in addition to pointing out that you didn’t intend to stereotype Natives, it would help me understand if you explained what point you were making by relating your spouse’s experiences with Native families in criticizing ICWA. As you have pointed out, I incorrectly understood that your points were that (1) ICWA mandated that Natives, due to being Natives, be given custody of children, despite having family members that abused alcohol and drugs, and (2) since ICWA dealt with only Native families, alcohol and drug abuse must be a typical characteristic of such families. Those were the points I challenged as incorrect and stereotypical and thankfully you quickly pointed out my mistakes.
Perhaps you will clarify what were your points were since they were not intended to disparage ICWA, or stereotype Natives? What exactly did you have in mind when you wrote that ICWA “does need some fixing, at least on the enforcement side”?
And regarding the non-native examples of child abuse I described, I could have missed it, but I only recall the public outrage being focused on the abusers alone, not some problem with relevant SD state laws, social workers, courts that accepted DSS recommendations to place these children in each horrible situation, or with the enforcement of SD law.
In contrast, I read your comment as blaming ICWA enforcement language for the placement of kids with Native families that abused alcohol or drugs as your were told about by your social worker spouse. Was there something in that comment I overlooked that recognized this was not a problem with ICWA enforcement requirements or Natives? In your spouse’s examples, once your spouse presumably reported the problems related to you, did any appropriate agency take steps to protect the children by removing either them or the abuser from the homes your spouse reported?
What specific changes in ICWA do you feel would alleviate the concerns identified by you and your spouse about inadequate enforcement?
So, because a person knows some members of a subpopulation did a thing, it follows that the person must believe all members of a population all do that thing? What sort of vacuous leap in logic is that? Last week, I saw video of a mentally ill black man assaulting an elderly asian woman in NYC. I am pretty distressed to find out that, according to your view of the world, I must now believe all black people assault asians.
Why relate my wife’s experiences? Because I saw native children suffering due to the way ICWA was being enforced and it bugs me. People tend to do that when bad things happen, BCB. The kids in one case were eventually removed, but it was after a couple months of exposure to the BS that had been going on for some time. It tells me that whoever saw fit to place children there didn’t do a good enough job.
As to whether or not cases of abuse outside of natives have been reported: https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/05/03/secrecy-cloaks-investigations-sd-social-services/8682969/
That search took me all of 5 seconds to find.
Dicta, thanks for the link to the Argus story. I note that the story reports a general criticism that SD law keeps information confidential from the public and complaints that DSS workers had too much discretion. Otherwise, I saw no specific complaints about SD law or recommendations for change. And if I am not mistaken, SD law makes all confidential information fully available to DSS and law enforcement when then investigating possible placements or complaints about a placement.
I fully agree with you that simply “because a person knows some members of a subpopulation did a thing,” it does not follow “that the person must believe all members of a population all do that thing.” That is the exact reason I objected to your comment, since it looked to me like a negative stereotype of Natives families caring for children under ICWA. But thanks again for repeatedly pointing out my mistake about your intent.
As for bringing up your wife’s experiences, your earlier comments declaring “ICWA does have very real problems” purported to be justified primarily by stories you declared that that your wife told you about. Otherwise, I would not have related that your wife was a social worker or what she told you she had experienced.
Without having access to all the information about the cases you described, I will take what you have said about the enforcement of these cases with a grain of salt. There may be facts that neither of us are aware of that affected the evaluation and enforcement decisions in that case. I do know from experience that there are usually two sides to the motivating facts in every story.
Simply asserting that ICWA has “real problems” without identifying those specific problems in the statutory scheme, and without proposing ideas for amendment, repeal, or other solution to the problem, is not particularly informative or helpful.
I tell you that my problem’s with ICWA revolve around how it is enforced sometimes. I provide you an article that levels the same criticism at the state and your response is “I note that the story reports a general criticism that SD law keeps information confidential from the public and complaints that DSS workers had too much discretion.” You keep talking past what I’ve said to you.
Dicta, right and, if I am not mistaken, both the discretion and confidentiality complaints related to enforcement of SD law, yet like your ICWA enforcement complaint no particular SD statutes were identified that arguably needed to be changed, repealed, added or supplemented.
Perhaps you could share exactly what parts of ICWA you think should be changed, repealed, added or supplemented and with what language?
Back in 20124 wasn’t Guv Daugaard’s wife messing with the placement of Indian kids in white foster homes?
At the very least, greater oversight of the DSS and and their tribal ICWA counterparts are in order. If children are placed with abusive or neglectful fosters, there should be a mandatory investigation of not just the family itself, but the government official who conducted the assessment and deemed placement acceptable. Any showing of negligence on their part, or a pattern of placement which places children at risk, should be immediate grounds for termination. I am not sure what, if any, legal ramifications are appropriate so long as individuals were acting in their official capacity (it’s been a while since law school, so I don’t remember the standard of legal liability for official conduct and what exceptions are allowed.) Again, there is no precise language I am pointing out, rather the way agencies enforce it.
Dicta has a perturbing habit of exaggeration and denying culpability by making things up.
BCB pours gasoline down his gopher holes and sets his backstroking afire.
Just sayin’ …
So does Kurt Evans.
Really thought provoking analysis, Porter. Thanks.
Dicta, it would seem then, that the idea that ICWA has “real problems” simply misses the mark. Rather, your focus on possible solutions indicates you believe there are “real problems” with “DSS and and their tribal ICWA counterparts,” instead of with ICWA. Perhaps ICWA is actually a pretty good set of laws after all?
In any event, thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I might add that we should also look at whether DSS and its ICWA counterparts are adequately funded to provide appropriate staffing and training, and whether DSS and its ICWA counterpart are adequately funded to be able to provide financial aid and other family assistance designed to help placements in Native homes succeed and keep children safe and healthy.
Scotus rules in favor of Native families adopting Native children.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/indian-welfare-adoption-case-supreme-court/index.html