THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 18 | APRIL 2024 No legal counsel for the children or their parents No courtroom or formal legal setting The threat of or actual withholding of welfare benefits Fear of jail or imprisonment Abduction16 In 1958, the BIA and the Child Welfare League of America established the Indian Adoption Project, which emphasized adoption into non-Indian homes.17 A 1969 study by the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) showed that the rates of adoption and foster care placement of Indian children were higher than those of non- Indian children.18 But the rates varied from state to state. In Washington, the adoption of Indian children was 19 times higher than the adoption of other children versus 1.3 times higher in Arizona.19 Foster care placement for Indian children was 15.7 times higher than for other children in South Dakota while 2.6 times higher in Arizona.20 It is important to note that Arizona still had high rates of Indian child placements in boarding schools at the time of the 1969 study.21 Approximately 25-35% of Indian children had been separated from their families.22 This information was presented to Congress in 1974. These studies, along with testimony and the important need for legislation recognizing the cultural and traditional practices of Native Americans, led to the beginning stages of the ICWA. Some of the submitted statements provide shocking examples of the mistreatment and dehumanization these children endured. Norbert S. Hill, tribal manager of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Inc., submitted a statement to Congress that included the following: In Rural areas the county and state officials in a great many cases are nothing more than little Caesars who control the destiny of the less fortunate. Some cases in point are as follows: A. Two sisters, 15 and 16, were placed in a foster home where the foster father molested the 16 year old. She ran away several times and was then placed in a state institution. She remained there until she was eighteen, when she was released she had no one to turn to for guidance; again she ended up in a group home with an illegitimate child. The child was placed in a foster home in another state. B. An incident was witnessed where a foster father was out late at night looking for a 12 year old girl with two dogs and two of his sons. She had according to him run away. His language in describing the girl was most despicable. C. A grandmother who tried to keep her grandchild while her daughter was in a rehabilitation center had the child forcibly taken from her. The child was placed in a foster home for a fee. D. A 10 day old baby was placed with relatives while the mother sought employment. After three months the Department of Social Services removed the baby. The people that had given care to the baby were told, “that because of the baby’s Indian background it would have to be placed in a second-rate home.”23 William Byler, then executive director of the AAIA, also provided a statement to the U.S. Senate. He explained that “the dynamics of Indian extended families are largely misunderstood” because an Indian child might have scores of relatives who are considered close relatives of the family and who can be relied upon for the care of the child. But social workers who are unfamiliar with the ways of Indian family life assume that leaving a child with someone outside the nuclear family is socially irresponsible and amounts to neglect, and they use that as grounds for terminating parental rights.24 Mr. Byler presented several examples of the treatment of Indian children in adoptive and foster homes from various states. In South Dakota, the Department of Welfare “petitioned a State court to terminate the rights of a Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux mother to one of her two children on the grounds that he was sometimes left with his sixty-nine-year-old great-grandmother.” Upon being questioned by the mother’s attorney, the social worker admitted that the four-year-old son was well cared for but simply added that the great-grandmother “is worried at times.”25 In California, state officials attempted to use “poverty” as a standard for separating a Rosebud Sioux mother and child. The mother had arranged for the child to move with her aunt to California, and the mother would arrive a week later. By the time the Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==