The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), while important during its inception, is no longer necessary or in the best interest of the child, because its application has proven to be arbitrary with no uniform application. This paper will discuss the history and purpose behind the implementation of the ICWA, as well as the jurisdictional and procedural issues of ICWA. Further, I will discuss the primary reasons why the ICWA is no longer necessary in its current state. Lastly, I will propose a uniform system that would limit the reach of ICWA while still protecting the Native American culture.
I. History and Purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
The ICWA states in part that, “[a]n Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive . . . over any child
…show more content…
Some tribes require a person to possess one-fourth tribal blood to be eligible for membership; however, other tribes require much less. Some tribes merely require that a person have some degree of tribal blood and be related to a tribal member. This leads to an uneven application of ICWA. For ICWA to be triggered, the child in question must either “be a member of an Indian tribe or be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” This means that children from one tribe, such as the Comanche, which requires one-fourth Native American blood for tribal registration, will be treated differently from children of another tribe, such as Seminole, which requires no set level of Native American …show more content…
Furthermore, the court should put a greater value on the best interest of the child in relation to the interest of the tribe ICWA should be amended to provide for a uniform standard that the courts could use in determining which children are subject to ICWA. ICWA should also provide a basis that would apply to all Native Children regardless of their tribal affiliation. Additionally, there should be a hearing prior to the transfer of cases to tribal court to ensure that it is in the best interest of the child for the tribal court to hear the case. Cases where the child has ties to the reservation and tribal members are more appropriate for tribal court than cases that involve a child with minimal Native American blood and minimal or no ties to the reservation or
Tribal lands were not all purely native Americans. Interracial marriages encouraged the potential for bully and abuse within their own tribal lands. This encouraged formal acts of government within the tribes such as, court trials that resulted in the extension of Native American sovereignty. But it also allowed for the tribes to govern themselves “legal grey areas” which were clearly evident to the Native Americans and many conflicts arose because of the procrastination of fixing the problem at hand. Native Americans have fought against the suppression of rights and discrimination but persevered adopting new rights to vote, along with the ability to self-govern their own communities and deal with their own domestic laws under the United States of
The two items which are defined in the document are “(1) The tribal organization. (2) The Indian reservation.” For one, the United States government set up the Indian reservations, creating poor living conditions that would hinder the ability to progress at the rate that the Untied States formulated for them. The soil, for instance, in Oklahoma, where most of the reservations were at during this time, were awful for farming. Therefore, the Indians would starve and be in ill health. Again, the United States contradicted itself in regards to Indian policy, by choosing to ignore the most crucial parts of history that led to the poor conditions of the
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 was established because an American boy was abducted form a Florida shopping mall and was later found murdered. The act was signed into law by George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. This act is established to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime to prevent child abuse and child pornography to promote internet safety. This act is also known as the sex offender registration and notification act. It was established with the intention to strengthen laws related to child sexual predators. This law was instructed for each state and/or territory to apply criteria’s for posting offenders data on the internet.
For several hundred years people have sought answers to the Indian problems, who are the Indians, and what rights do they have? These questions may seem simple, but the answers themselves present a difficult number of further questions and answers. State and Federal governments have tried to provide some order with a number of laws and policies, sometimes resulting in state and federal conflicts. The Federal Government's attempt to deal with Indian tribes can be easily understood by following the history of Federal Indian Policy. Indians all over the United States fought policies which threatened to destroy their familial bonds and traditions. The Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe of Maine, resisted no less than these other tribes, however, thereby also suffering a hostile anti-Indian environment from the Federal Government and their own State, Maine. But because the Passamaquoddy Tribe was located in such a remote area, they escaped many federal Indian policies.
In 1887 the federal government launched boarding schools designed to remove young Indians from their homes and families in reservations and Richard Pratt –the leader of Carlisle Indian School –declared, “citizenize” them. Richard Pratt’s “Kill the Indian… and save the man” was a speech to a group of reformers in 1892 describing the vices of reservations and the virtues of schooling that would bring young Native Americans into the mainstream of American society.
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.
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.
In this proposal our team seeks to explore the injustices within the Indian Act. To achieve this our proposed research will examine the target population being the aboriginal woman. The paper will further explore the oppressions faced by the aboriginal women within the Indian Act. In conclusion, this proposal will sum up the negative impact that the Indian Act had on aboriginal women and how it continues to oppress this population within the Canadian National discourse.
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.
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...
In conclusion, the persistent disparities in American Indians and Alaska Natives communities are deeply rooted in historical trauma. To improve the health status of AI/AN there needs more American Indian/Alaska Natives delivery health care to the community. More importantly, tribal leaders and the AI/AN community must participate in raising the health status of the community. It should not take a congressional action to decrease the disparities plaguing the American Indian/Alaska Native communities.
“To kill the Indian in the child,” was the prime objective of residential schools (“About the Commission”). With the establishment of residential schools in the 1880s, attending these educational facilities used to be an option (Miller, “Residential Schools”). However, it was not until the government’s time consuming attempts of annihilating the Aboriginal Canadians that, in 1920, residential schools became the new solution to the “Indian problem.” (PMC) From 1920 to 1996, around one hundred fifty thousand Aboriginal Canadians were forcibly removed from their homes to attend residential schools (CBC News). Aboriginal children were isolated from their parents and their communities to rid them of any cultural influence (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Parents who refrained from sending their children to these educational facilities faced the consequence of being arrested (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Upon the Aboriginal children’s arrival into the residential schools, they were stripped of their culture in the government’s attempt to assimilate these children into the predominately white religion, Christianity, and to transition them into the moderating society (Miller, “Residential Schools”). With the closing of residential schools in 1996, these educational facilities left Aboriginal Canadians with lasting negative intergenerational impacts (Miller, “Residential Schools”). The Aboriginals lost their identity, are affected economically, and suffer socially from their experiences.
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
This essay will first address the statute used and interpretation of the threshold test by the courts, and then focus on cases involving vulnerable children to assess whether the statute in The Children Act 1989 is sufficient in protecting these children from harm. I will look at the argument in favour of the current approach taken by the courts, and the counter-argument in favour of changing the current approach. The arguments are delicately balanced and the law is always developing, so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this issue in future.
... of sex crimes. Furthermore, granting tribes full authority to prosecute any crime may create injustice for accused non-native individuals as well as creating more complication between tribes (Gede, 2012).