Her biological father is Choctaw, she is Choctaw.
She is not being placed with her father who has a long criminal record. She is being placed with some of his relatives who aren't actually NDNs. But her sisters are there and that's what the courts saw as important. Also, this family has remained in close touch with the girl in question. They are not at all strangers to her.
She is not being placed with her father who has a long criminal record. She is being placed with some of his relatives who aren't actually NDNs. But her sisters are there and that's what the courts saw as important. Also, this family has remained in close touch with the girl in question. They are not at all strangers to her.
I do not think she is where she belongs. I think anyone who watched the video of them removing her from the family should think twice about whether it was really in her "best interests" to remove her.
The biological father has never had an interest or a connection to the Chocktaw Nation.
I believe that was a convenient excuse for his relatives to go for custody of the child.
If something had happened to me when my oldest son was younger, I'd have NEVER in a million years wanted him to go to my ex-husband's relatives.
We are licensed foster care providers, but we are marked as "foster-adopt only", because we don't want to go through the heartache of giving a child up.
I know she is not being placed with her biological father and I know the relatives she is living with now are non-NDN. I was simply making the comment that her father is Choctaw, which means she is also Choctaw. She is an NDN child who was protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act. I am glad that this federal law protecting Native American children prevailed in this case. I stand with the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Indian Child Welfare Association, and with the National Congress of American Indians in this case. In my opinion, all children, including Native American children, belong with their biological family, if that is at all possible.
I agree, but not because she is NDN.
I agree because relatives should always have priority unless they are shown to be unfit.
But it is cruel to all involved to allow such cases to drag on so long.
They won't let you adopt non-White children? Aren't they the ones that we are told need adopted the most?We are licensed foster care providers, but we are marked as "foster-adopt only", because we don't want to go through the heartache of giving a child up. There are very few cases that become adoption cases around here, and most of them unfortunately involve non-white children, which our system has repeatedly told us we don't really qualify for.
It's a twisted business. I'm almost rather relieved that we haven't received a call to bring a child into our home.
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.
That's not true. He has always been a member of the Chocktaw tribe.
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.
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.
How does that work?
They won't let you adopt non-White children? Aren't they the ones that we are told need adopted the most?
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.
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.
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.
What little Cuban boy was taken away? When did this happen?
Sixteen years isn't an extremely long time ago. I remember when this went down. I'm not much older than Elian.Oh. I assumed she meant something recent. That happened an extremely long time ago. In that link there are quotes from the boy who is now grown up saying he was v glad to have been returned to Cuba to be w his family & retain his nationality. He grew up w his siblings. That is important. He grew up with his dad & stepmom too. Of course that's a super dramatic image, but it doesn't show what happened in the yrs afterwards. Or the side of the other ppl involved. That's kind of the same thing here bc we see the girl being taken away & that trauma. We don't see the rest of it. Maybe, hopefully for her it will all work out well like it did for him. It sounds like his life is great now. He is studying to be an engineer & seems happy.
Sixteen years isn't an extremely long time ago. I remember when this went down. I'm not much older than Elian.
Maybe he is glad to be back in Cuba. But it's hard to know for sure, it's not like they have freedom of speech over there. Plus, the kid is a great propaganda tool for Castro. His mother died trying to get them both out of that brutal dictatorship. Ultimately, her sacrifice was in vain thanks to the convoluted asylum laws.
Probably cost Al Gore the election, too. Never underestimate the political influence of Florida's Cuban population. Why do you think we've kept the embargo for so long? Because politicians practically have to bow down to the Cuban Immigrant community in order to win Florida, a crucial swing state in presidential elections.
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.
Removals, no matter what the circumstances, will almost always be heart-wrenching.
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.
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.
We are only called on cases where there is little to no chance that the biological parents or their family will gain custody back.
]Time has shown through the ages that CPS often does not do things "consistently well".
Was he paying child support? Oftentimes the best thing to do in such situations is to allow the step-father adopt. The biological father often will agree to this to get out of child support, especially if he is unfit to be a father in the first place.
This thread is posted in the News & Current Events section. So, as far as current events go 16 yrs is an extremely long time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?