Here is the problem I have with that. If you are putting the interest of your child first you don't make media circus out of it. Remember the story of Solomon and the two mothers who both claimed the same child? This girl had stayed with this family on previous occasions. If they had properly prepared her and if arrangements had been made to keep in contact with the foster family, I don't think her removal would have been nearly as traumatic. My father cried when my foster brother and sister were taken away, but he didn't cry in front of them.
I don't know who made the media circus out of it. Someone kept yelling "it's illegal to record (or tape, can't remember) her, it's illegal to record her" or something along those lines. I remember when that little Cuban boy was taken away, there was a media circus around that, as well, and it wasn't because of the family he was being removed from.
We honestly don't know that they didn't try to prepare her. Removals, no matter what the circumstances, will almost always be heart-wrenching.
That's not true. He has always been a member of the Chocktaw tribe.
I have read in numerous articles, even ones that support this decision, that the father is, for lack of a better term, a non-practicing Choctaw. He can be a member of the tribe, sure, but he's not living on a rez, never has lived on a rez, and never had any affiliation with the tribe other than a generally automatic membership claim. It was his "lineage" that determined his status, and that lineage is what is allowing another non-Indian family to have custody of the girl.
Yes and no. The principles that apply in this case are ones that should apply in ever child custody case. It is just that it is required in the case of Native Americans.
And I believe it was abused here. I see the purpose of the law, even as that is dwindling, but to me it's rather like zero tolerance laws.
You realize the mother is still alive? She is a drug-addict who has lost six of her children to the foster-care system. If any of her relatives had tried to get custody they probably would have succeeded. There is nothing in this law that says the Indian side of the family gets first priority. It was the father's family that was interested and sued for custody. Why shouldn't she be united with her sisters?
Incidentally the Pages' were her third foster home.
My entire point is that biology doesn't always equal better. I remember the courts telling me way back when my oldest was still a minor that should anything happen to me, my ex's parents could petition for custody even though my son had been living with us, and calling my husband dad and had not had any contact with his biological father. That's how messed up the courts are. I had to get a restraining order against HIS FAMILY too to make sure that didn't happen.
In this case, both parents are screwed up and need help.
Being reunited with her sisters shouldn't be the top priority here. Yes, it's a nice dreamy thought, but it may not be what's best for her at this time.
We are only called on cases where there is little to no chance that the biological parents or their family will gain custody back. We had a case here in MN not too long ago where a father, who had been petitioning the court constantly for custody of his children because the mother was abusing him, finally lost it and killed the wife in front of the kids in a car at a park. Totally messed up situation. He goes to jail, and a friend of ours had the three children for a few months while they sorted everything out. Mom was dead, dad was in prison. Mom's family wanted the children, but they wanted to take them back to Russia (it was very weird hanging out with our friends because they had police with them at all times because apparently the mom had Russian mob connections and a threat to kidnap them had been received.) Anyhoo, CPS refused to give custody to the mom's family because they didn't want the children removed from the country so I'm really not sure who they ended up with...had we been licensed at that time, we would've been offered the opportunity to adopt them. I'm not sure that we would have been equipped to deal with the mental and physical baggage of watching your mother die in front of you, and the fact that the older girl was very nonchalant about the whole thing. When I first met her, she asked me if I knew what happened. I nodded and she said "Daddy killed Momma" I nodded again, and then she said "I'm glad he killed her. Momma hurt us". Oh did that break my heart...
So yeah, that's why we don't get phone calls...foster care system exists to reunite whenever possible.
They won't let you adopt non-White children? Aren't they the ones that we are told need adopted the most?
They are, but with the foster system it's a bit different. Adoption, whether through private agencies or the system, is one big racket these days, but at least in the private sector they tend to not make a big deal about racial ethnicity. Here, we were told that they always strived to placed non-white children with non-white families. If they are able to do that consistently well, then, okay.
Time has shown through the ages that CPS often does not do things "consistently well".[/quote]