Indian Placement Program, Indian Child Welfare Act and Foster Girl Removed From Ca. Family.

[CA Steve]

My wife told me about a six year old foster child in Southern California who was being removed from her foster family because she was part Indian.This family had cared for her for years and considered her their daughter. I think she is only 1/64th Indian but I am still investigating this story as well as other background information. Here are some links.

Family could lose child over Indian Child Welfare Act Cnn Story

Indian Child Welfare Act - Wiki Article

Indian Placement Program - Wiki Article

I found it interesting that the LDS Church and our Indian Placement Program played a factor in the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act. From the Wiki article:

Quote

Various other groups also played a factor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had an Indian Placement Program that removed Indian children from their tribes and into church members homes. By the 1970s, approximately 5,000 Indian children were living in Mormon homes.^[9] The lack of knowledge of most social workers also played into the high removal rates. Most social workers are conditioned by the "best interest of the child" as outlined by Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (Second Edition), which advocates bonding with at least one adult as a parent figure^[10] rather than taking into consideration the tribal culture of the extended tribal family. The common Indian practice of leaving a child with an extended relative was viewed as abandonment by these well-intentioned social workers, but was viewed as perfectly normal by tribal members.^[11]

While it is hard not to sympathize with the California family who feel like their child is being taken away, I can also see the point being made by the Indian tribes that their future cultural identity was in danger.

Quote

Before enactment, as many as 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children were being removed from their Indian homes and placed in non-Indian homes, with presumably the absence of Indian culture.^[3][4] In some cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) paid the states to remove Indian children and to place them with non-Indian families and religious groups.^[

This story raises a lot of interesting questions.

Does anyone have more information on why the Indian Placement Program was discontinued?

I did find references to a paper(?) by James Allen called  "The Rise and Decline of the LDS Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-1996

but I cannot find the paper itself. Here is a paragraph from that paper in which Allen describes his conclusions.

Quote

No matter how successful the program itself may have been, however, it was vulnerable to criticism, for the previous history of boarding schools, foster homes and adoption programs for Native Americans had created an atmosphere of mistrust of any such program operated and controlled by white society. To some it looked too much like simply another manifestation of traditional efforts to Americanize the Indians and eliminate their distinctive cultural heritage.... In the end the Indian Student Placement service performed exceptionally well in achieving the major goal it began with-to provide better educational opportunities for LDS Indian children.

Today, do we still think it was/is a good idea to remove these youth from their homes? If so why are we not still doing it, if not why?

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

The Church Indian Placement Program was entirely voluntary.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Placement_Program

[Jim Stiles]

Most tribes have a name for someone who is 1/64 American Indian.  That name is "white" (or black or East Asian or whatever).

This story (no video) says 1.56 percent (1/64 = 1.5625%).  In other words, white.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-girl-removed-foster-family-over-her-native-041458771.html

Edited March 22, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[smac97]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has a good synopsis of this program:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Indian_Student_Placement_Services

Thanks,

-Smac

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

Most tribes have a name for someone who is 1/64 American Indian.  That name is "white" (or black or East Asian or whatever).

This story (no video) says 1.56 percent (1/64 = 1.5625%).  In other words, white.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-girl-removed-foster-family-over-her-native-041458771.html

 

Apparently the Choctaw tribe doesn't consider her white:
 

Quote

In a statement, the National Indian Child Welfare Association said the Pages were aware for years that the girl was an American Indian but chose to "drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child."

In a statement, the Choctaw Nation said it "desires the best for this Choctaw child."

"The tribe's values of faith, family and culture are what makes our tribal identity so important to us. Therefore we will continue to work to maintain these values and work toward the long-term best interest of this child," the statement said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/native-american-girl-6-removed-from-california-foster-home/ar-BBqKWeB

Foster parents fostering a Native American should be under no illusions about this child's  ICWA status.  

[mtomm]

I had an Indian placement sister for a year. We knew her from staying with a previous family before and we stayed in contact for another year after she left our home. I learned from her the concept of family is very different to Native Americans than it was to my idea of family. Everyone in her tribe was either her "cousin," "auntie," or "uncle." Even though she wasn't related by blood to everyone in the tribe she no doubt considered each to be a family member. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

Most tribes have a name for someone who is 1/64 American Indian.  That name is "white" (or black or East Asian or whatever).

This story (no video) says 1.56 percent (1/64 = 1.5625%).  In other words, white.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-girl-removed-foster-family-over-her-native-041458771.html

If I had 1/64 native American blood could I be considered a possible descendant of Lehi?

Edited March 22, 2016 by CA Steve

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If I had 1/64 native American blood could I be considered a possible descendant of Lehi?

Possible, but unlikely.

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Possible, but unlikely.

I think it's fair to say that if any Native Americans are descendants of Lehi, they probably all are. Population genetics are weird that way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11615902/Most-European-men-descended-from-just-three-ancestors.html

[bluebell]

What our country needs is a 'Common Sense Act'.  It would save a lot of heartache in pretty much every direction.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

What our country needs is a 'Common Sense Act'.  It would save a lot of heartache in pretty much every direction.

We would need to find someone with common sense to administer. I will call Diogenes and ask him if he is available if you will dust off his lantern.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think it's fair to say that if any Native Americans are descendants of Lehi, they probably all are. Population genetics are weird that way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11615902/Most-European-men-descended-from-just-three-ancestors.html

Not really. There places within the Book of Mormon that depict a religious-political distinction not a familial. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not really. There places within the Book of Mormon that depict a religious-political distinction not a familial. 

Yes, but he is still right. If Lehi is the father of anyone still living then he is likely a father of everyone originating in the Americas along some line. It is a fun oddity. If we get several more centuries with a lot of cross-group breeding he might end up the father of everyone.

Same with Abraham and other ancient figures.

[Bernard Gui]

This seems unjust. Are we getting the whole story?

1/64th would not qualify a person for membership in a tribe according to this article...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/how_do_you_join_an_indian_tribe.html

There must be other things going on. No comprendo.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This seems unjust. Are we getting the whole story?

1/64th would not qualify a person for membership in a tribe according to this article...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/how_do_you_join_an_indian_tribe.html

There must be other things going on. No comprendo.

Here's a statement from the national Indian child welfare association about it for the other side of the storyHere. Personally I'd found it odd in the original story, not because the kid was part native, but because they were fostering. It's well known that foster homes are, by nature, temporary about trying to reunify families if possible. Usually they're shorter stays, but not always. My sense is there's definitely more to this story. 

 

As as for the IPP...I've known people/families that were effected by it. The last guy I dated, his mother was apart of it. From what I see it's mentioned as a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand several of these areas at time were financially crippled and families struggled with basic things like supplying food. Natives got the shaft from the surrounding government/people which means their vulnerable population would feel more of the brunt of any economical downturn. So one of the reason many would agree to it was because it promised their children the basics like food and education. On the other hand cultural genocide and actual genocide were both long term and real threats to natives. Cultural genocide still is and is an on-going battle to maintain at least some of their costums. Though IPP wasn't as outright as previous programs to squash native costum/language...it still did at times...and that's part of the problem. It could be then disruptive when returning said children to their homes. But I don't have any solid info...that's just the general sense I've picked up from how people talk about it.

 

with luv, 

bd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Here's a statement from the national Indian child welfare association about it for the other side of the storyHere. Personally I'd found it odd in the original story, not because the kid was part native, but because they were fostering. It's well known that foster homes are, by nature, temporary about trying to reunify families if possible. Usually they're shorter stays, but not always. My sense is there's definitely more to this story. 

 

As as for the IPP...I've known people/families that were effected by it. The last guy I dated, his mother was apart of it. From what I see it's mentioned as a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand several of these areas at time were financially crippled and families struggled with basic things like supplying food. Natives got the shaft from the surrounding government/people which means their vulnerable population would feel more of the brunt of any economical downturn. So one of the reason many would agree to it was because it promised their children the basics like food and education. On the other hand cultural genocide and actual genocide were both long term and real threats to natives. Cultural genocide still is and is an on-going battle to maintain at least some of their costums. Though IPP wasn't as outright as previous programs to squash native costum/language...it still did at times...and that's part of the problem. It could be then disruptive when returning said children to their homes. But I don't have any solid info...that's just the general sense I've picked up from how people talk about it.

 

with luv, 

bd

We had my sister for four years as a foster child before her mother decided to give up her rights.  If her mother had decided not to do so, my sister would have been placed back with her immediately, despite having lived with us since she was 1 year old and only seeing her mother for an hour twice a week at a supervised location.  Even an untrained idiot would know how traumatic that would be for any child.

The system doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time.

[AllenJ]

I served my mission on the Navajo reservation from 1985-87 while the placement program was still ongoing.  From my observation, it was generally considered a positive thing by the Navajo people, especially by active members of the church.  Many local small business owners had taken part and credited the program for their success.  Many had been supported by their "host" families in receiving a college education and in serving full time missions, even though that was not officially part of the program.  Unlike the first government boarding schools, those who had taken part in the placement program did not feel their native culture was being suppressed.  Admittedly, this was my impression mostly from active members of the church, and those friendly to the missionaries.  I naturally didn't have a lot of contact with those who were unfriendly to the church.  Their view about the placement program may have been different.

One thing we had to be real careful about as missionaries, is there were many who wanted baptism just to get on the program.  Although the public schools were much better by 1985, it was still felt by many that the opportunities offered by the placement program were superior.

[mtomm]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We had my sister for four years as a foster child before her mother decided to give up her rights.  If her mother had decided not to do so, my sister would have been placed back with her immediately, despite having lived with us since she was 1 year old and only seeing her mother for an hour twice a week at a supervised location.  Even an untrained idiot would know how traumatic that would be for any child.

The system doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time.

In this situation it was the foster family and their attorney who were being the obstructionists and not the system at least according to the story that BD posted. 

[cinepro]

While not directly related, this story is just so fascinating I highly recommend listening to it.  It's "Act 2" here (the families involved are LDS):

No Map

Reporter Ted Gesing interviews Mike Nyberg about adopting a little girl from Samoa, only to learn over time that her Samoan family had no intention of giving her up for adoption. The US adoption agency had told the Nybergs that their adoption would be closed, and that their little girl Elleia had been living in a foster home waiting for adoptive parents; but in Samoa, Elleia's parents were told that their daughter could come to the US and receive a better education, and that the adoptive family would send money and regular updates on their daughter's progress. The whole situation leaves the Nybergs trying to find their way through sticky moral territory. (31 minutes)

 

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, mtomm said:

In this situation it was the foster family and their attorney who were being the obstructionists and not the system at least according to the story that BD posted. 

Is that a surprise to anyone though?  

The government's idea of short term care is pretty strained when it comes to the foster care system.  They want parents to raise children and love them as if they were their own, sometimes for years, and then they act all confused when those parents don't want to just hand them over like a used car they had been borrowing.

And it really doesn't make any sense that someone who is 1.5% Native American should be completely under that tribe's control. 

MMy great great great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee and I love being a part of her but I'm not Native American and neither are my children.  I've got more English blood than any other but even then I would throw a fit if the UK wanted some kind of claim on me or my kids. 

[Jeanne]

I had (and still do) have a sister that was in the placement program in our home for six years.  I love her!!!!  What made things easier for all concerned was her family visited us.  Her brothers were very conscious or worried that she keep her Indian ways.  Her real sister was in the placement program just a few miles away in another ward and we all got together and went to school together.  I loved it when her family visited.  They always made us dinner with the fry bread and everything.  Funny though..my Dad really thought she was getting whiter by the year.  I never knew why the program ended..but one thing I DO know..she was a Pueblo indian and doesn't matter where they go..they and the Navajo do not get along.  She is still my sister today!

I do believe that common sense should rule the law.  If they have been with one family for a long time and is wanted...they should be able to wait until the age of 12 and decide for themselves.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

What our country needs is a 'Common Sense Act'.  It would save a lot of heartache in pretty much every direction.

The bad news is, if we had a Common Sense Act, there wouldn't be any government entity capable of enforcing it.

[Calm]

This book had an article on the program detailing the history and longterm effects of the Placement Program,which were generally somewhat positive, iirc, in the opinions of participants as well as objective measures such as economic status, educational achievement, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Mormonism-SOCIAL-SCIENCE-PERSPECTIVES/dp/0252069595

I believe I have summarized it in the past on the board if someone wants more details, a search on its name should bring it up if it wasn't in a deleted thread.  Not able to repeat the performance at the moment.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Calm
wrong book

[Calm]

Wrong book, got confused with my older LDS social science text I have sitting next to it on my shelf.

Do a "look inside" search on "indian placement" on the link above and one of the first couple of hits takes you to the chapter and it appears you can read all of it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had my sister for four years as a foster child before her mother decided to give up her rights.  If her mother had decided not to do so, my sister would have been placed back with her immediately, despite having lived with us since she was 1 year old and only seeing her mother for an hour twice a week at a supervised location.  Even an untrained idiot would know how traumatic that would be for any child.

The system doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time.

I don't know if the system entirely can in said situations because one's already working with a compromised family system and a messy history. I've heard of varying cases, both fostering, adopting, and otherwise. I've heard of amazing foster parents who knew that they may be holding onto a child "temporarily" and worked to do right by both the child and the biological family involved. I've heard of ones who were terrible foster families that cemented emotionally compromised children. I've heard of adoptive parents who also didn't realize what they were getting into. I've heard of successful good re-placements back into the biological family. I've heard of terrible re-placements. I know one case that both the fostering and re-placement were bad and the best option probably would have been the grandparents. Each is so varied that I'd have a hard time stating a ground rule because that ground rule may then later come to bite another family in a different circumstance in the tush. That's why the Indian Welfare Act was (and is) there in the first place. To desist with a continued human rights violation. It's had some obvious flaws currently in actual implementation. But I don't feel confident enough to say one way or another about this case because I'm only hearing one side of a story. I don't know the biological family's story. There's just so little to go off of.

Even the 1/64 thing....I remember a story of a person who ID'd as African american, believed he was, and found out he had no sub-saharan african ancestry in his DNA (according to a test)....meaning what  DNA he did was marginal at best.  Because tribes are also ethnic groups, it may be that that family line just maintained their ties to the Native community better than most. But again, there's really little to go on. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by BlueDreams