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. The history of Indian Child Welfare Act derived from the need to address the problems with the removal of Indian children from their communities. Native American tribes identified the problem of Native American children being raised by non-native families when there were alarming numbers of children being removed from their h... ... middle of paper ... ... American culture and the livelihood of the Indian tribes. However, there are some significant ideas that are brought up in the federal law. One of the most specific and controversial is the concept of whom is considered a parent and how might they prove their legitimacy to parenthood. Other debates examine whom may adopt or care for an Indian-American child and is it correct to deny a family from adopting or temporarily caring for a child because they are not of Native American descent? These are all broad questions that will examined in the future. As the United States Supreme Court ruled, specific portions of this law are up for further examination and analysis. This will be very beneficial to the future of the law and maintaining its relevance to child custody cases.
It had previously been the policy of the American government to remove and relocate Indians further and further west as the American population grew, but there was only so much...
Johnson uses this law as a temporary fix for few citizens are outspoken. silence the Indian group and their fight for civil rights. This was a waste of time and just prolonged the suffering of the Indian culture. A case known as Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo dealt with the laws under which they never took their civil rights seriously. The case was based on simple membership in Indian tribes with the intent of keeping blood line pure. Interracial couples were around in this time period and it became so common the problem of pure blood lines were becoming contaminated. The Santa Clara Pueblo has been a recognized federal government for more than one-hundred years. Santa Clara adopted a membership law and as a government, they regulate their own domestic relations that are reported to their own individual government under the United States. They determine citizenship through blood ratios and clear descendants. Martinez’s son was bi-racial, the mother was Native American and her husband was not Native American, under the law the father was not allowed into the tribe. The case covers the unequal rights Native Americans are facing but bullying within the tribes was evident when it was clear it was necessary to keep the blood line pure.The dissent of the case explained that if the constitution rights were to be given to individual citizen it will
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
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.
The Dawes Allotment Act of 1887 brought about the policy of Cultural Assimilation for the Native American peoples. Headed by Richard Henry Pratt, it founded several Residential Schools for the re-education and civilization of Native Americans. Children from various tribes and several reservations were removed from their families with the goal of being taught how to be c...
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.
The current generation of native people in Canada are greatly impacted by efforts made by the Canadian government that forced previous generations to assimilate and give up their culture. Most of the fifth generation of native people are not directly impacted by the atrocities that forced their people to give up their culture for the benefit of others; however, their diminished cultural identity is a result of it. Parents who are raising the fifth generation have difficulty passing on their Indian identity to their children (Deiter-McArthur 381). The parents and grandparents of the fifth generation were raised in the residential school system, where they were stopped from showing affection or love for one another even if it was their own brother or sister. This results in a lack of ability for some of them to show love toward their children (Maniitok). Another e...
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...
Throughout history, the government has been in charge of creating and regulating different types of laws. Many of the laws have been created to protect those who reside in that country and therefore are expected to be followed. However, not everyone believes that they should follow the law and in return decide to either ignore them or rebel against them. When members of society violate the simple law that has been set in place to protect those who do not possess the capability to protect themselves, it becomes a dangerous and horrendous tragedy. One of the most horrific laws that people violate is that of child abuse and neglect.
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.
The over-representation of Aboriginal children in the Canadian Child Welfare system is a growing and multifaceted issue rooted in a pervasive history of racism and colonization in Canada. Residential schools were established with the intent to force assimilation of Aboriginal people in Canada into European-Canadian society (Reimer, 2010, p. 22). Many Aboriginal children’s lives have been changed adversely by the development of residential schools, even for those who did not attend them. It is estimated that Aboriginal children “are 6-8 times more likely to be placed in foster care than non-Aboriginal children (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, 2010, p. 2).” Reports have also indicated that First Nations registered Indian children make up the largest proportion of Aboriginal children entering child welfare care across Canada (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, p. 2). Consequently, this has negatively impacted Aboriginal communities experience of and relationship with child welfare services across the country. It is visible that the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system in Canada lies in the impact of the Canadian policy for Indian residential schools, which will be described throughout this paper.
Sandefur, G. (n.d.). American Indian reservations: The first underclass areas? Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121f.pdf
Will and in this essay the author challenges the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any person born in the United States, is being misinterpreted. He explains how this misinterpretation leads to the actual act of illegal immigration. For example, by essentially rewarding the children of illegal immigrants with an American citizenship Will demonstrates how this provides an incentive for illegal immigration. The author makes clear the idea that when the 14th Amendment was written in 1866 it could not have included illegal immigrants since that concept did not exist at that time. He continues by using Indians as an example of people not included in the 14th Amendment since Indians and their children owed allegiance to their tribes. Finally, the author uses a decision by the Supreme Court in 1884 that declared both person and country must consent to the citizenship; therefore, if the source is illegal then the child should not be considered a