I felt the need to address the allegations posted on the Coalition for the Protection of Indian Children, which is the website I believe owned and operated by Jessica Munday. I spent some time researching the data she claims as fact that ICWA should be revised for the purpose of protecting “Indian children”. The web address is coalitionforindianchildren.org (Not to be confused with facebook page of the same name, this site has an opposite agenda, and that is in my opinion, to remove any legal standing Indian people and tribes may have against unethical adoptions.) After reviewing this information, I am convinced this site is grounds for a lawsuit. Now I am not going to cover the contents of the entire website. This would require a great deal more reading on both our parts. Following is what I have uncovered. First of all, I went to the link titled, “CASES”. Here is what I found in this category. There were 11 cases listed, 1 of the links was broken. Therefore, I will address the 10 remaining cases. First, 10/10 had the ICWA issue addressed. Second, 9/10 social services were notified early in the process, they had approximately 18 months to comply with ICWA and failed to follow procedure which caused a minimal delay (approximately 60 days maximum). Third, 10/10 of these cases, the children had not been returned to the parents. Fourth, 10/10 of these case files social services attempted to reunify the family prior to terminating parental rights. I did notice the reunification process lasted approximately 18 months, this process is for anyone with children and not specifically Indian parents. Fifth, 10/10 of these case files stated, “Not To Be Published in Official Reports. (Why? I don’t know.)” Sixth, 10/10 ADOPTION was a focal plan. In these cases 6/10 ICWA was undetermined (again, social services were notified to possible ICWA, and had 18 months to do their jobs, but failed to do so in a timely manner. The primary reason, social services had to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. This required they send a certified letter with return receipt to Bureau of Indian Affairs or to the presumed tribe). ICWA positively applied to 2/10 cases mentioned. ICWA positively did not apply to 2/10 cases. With at least 3/10 cases the children were adopted by extended family members (1 aunt, and 2 grandparents). 10/10 had one thing in common, bad parenting practices were perpetrated by 1 if not 2 non-Indian parents. I do not get why Jessica Munday chose these case studies to post on her ANTI-INDIAN, ANTI-ICWA website. On the other hand, maybe her intentions were to merely imply Indian people are lousy parents and no Indian should have any rights based upon their status as being Indians. Most certainly, she was likely calculating her cronies would take her word for it, that all of these cases proved Indians are bad parents or that ICWA is a bad thing, and likely none of her cronies would actually take the time to read for themselves or investigate the allegations presented by Munday. However, the one thing this site proves without a doubt, Jessica Munday believes Indians are of a lesser class of citizen, not entitled to their day in court, whereas alternately, she whole heartedly believes affluent people like her friends the Capobianco’s are superior and they deserve more legal consideration than Indians. Likely because they have the money and Indians have the children. Nevertheless, I do recommend everyone taking the time to read these cases. Although most of the bad parenting practices addressed in these cases were perpetrated by non-Indian parents. All of these case files give detailed rulings pertaining to ICWA law, citing case history details. 1. Alameda County Social Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kathleen W., Defendant and Appellant. Reading this case Alameda County Social Services failed to do their jobs in documenting their contact to appropriate agencies. The children in question had not been returned to the mother, ICWA is undetermined. “Disposition: The order denying Mother’s section 388 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order CFS to comply with the notice provisions of the ICWA. After finding that proper notice has been provided and after either receiving determinations of tribal membership or eligibility for membership or waiting the required time period, the court shall make findings whether the minors are Indian children. If the minors are Indian children, the court shall proceed in conformity with all provisions of the ICWA. If the minors are found not to be Indian children, the court shall reinstate the order denying Mother’s section 388 petition.” coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A115616.pdf 2. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H. and I. K., Appellants. In this case mother a non-Indian woman lost custody of her children after conviction and imprisonment. The youngest 4 years old has a father who did not abuse, harm, neglect, or endanger him. The father had no knowledge of this child’s existence. The father is Comanche, so therefore ICWA did apply. The 10-year-old non-Indian child had apparently been placed for adoption, while the 4-year-old at the time had not been turned over to the father. Instead, DHS was required to go back to the drawing board (Remanded-in-part) and follow the proper procedure concerning the child’s rights under ICWA and father’s rights under ICWA. Mainly the reunification process they had afforded mother should also be afforded father. Father was incarcerated at the time, but was soon to be released. (We are not going to hold that against him, considering Melanie Duncan Capobianco a non-Indian, has been incarcerated at least twice, that we know of.) coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A149947.pdf 3. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond S., Sr., and Celia M., Defendants and Appellants. This case shows that the social services failed to comply with the letter of the law. . ICWA is undetermined. Children were not returned to parents. Instead, the case was remanded for further investigation concerning ICWA. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/B195548.pdf 4. Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.J. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Once again, social services failed to do their job correctly. ICWA is undetermined. The children in question were not returned to the parents. ““The burden is on the [department] to obtain all possible information about the minor’s potential Indian background and provide that information to the relevant tribe or, if the tribe is unknown, to the BIA.” (In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 622, 630.) Notice is meaningless if it fails to provide the very information that might assist the tribe and the BIA in making a determination as to a minor’s Indian status. (In re D. T. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1455.) Here, DESS failed to sustain its burden of providing all available information, in accurate form, that was relevant to this inquiry.”” coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/F052166.pdf 5. San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eddie W., Defendant and Appellant. Again, the child in question had not been placed with her parent. social services failed to follow the letter of the law. ICWA undetermined. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/D050483.pdf 6. San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.M., Defendant and Appellant. In this case, parents are non-Indian, but because the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services failed to cross their “t’s” and dot their “i’s” the case hit a snag momentarily. Both parents had already lost reunification privileges, and then later rights were terminated. The interesting part is a maternal great aunt adopted the twins, while the youngest child was being adopted by the paternal grandmother. ICWA did not apply, and the children were not placed with either parent. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/E041636.pdf 7. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jamie E., Defendant and Appellant. ICWA undetermined, and children were not returned to parents. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/D050483.pdf 8. Kern County Department of Human Services, Human Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose B., Defendant and Appellant. In this case, social services did follow procedure. ICWA did not apply. The children were not returned to the parents. Instead, the non-Indian children were adopted by the paternal grandmother. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/F052166.pdf 9. Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Amber B., Defendant and Appellant. ICWA was undetermined. Child was not returned the parent. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/H031280.pdf 10. Del Norte Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dylan et al., Defendant and Respondent; Yurok Tribe, Intervener and Appellant. Child was not returned to parents. ICWA did apply. This case was rather unique. Adoption options fell within two categories, traditional state adoption which terminates parental rights, and tribal customary adoption, which does not believe in terminating parental rights for the purpose of a continued tribal connection with the child. Paternal grandparents adopted the child. coalitionforindianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/F052166.pdf
Posted on: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:23:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015