Y.R.J., the little girl who will be known by the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court as Y.R.J., is now four years old. She has been living with a couple in Texas who are trying to adopt her. The mother of Y.R.J. is a member of the Native American tribe. White is the color of the Brackens.
Thousands of Native American children in foster care could be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in the little girl's case. The outcome of the case could lead to the unraveling of federal protections for tribes.
The tribes are worried that if the Supreme Court finds that tribes are not political, they will be classified as race.
Robert Miller is a professor of federal Indian law at Arizona State University and a tribal court judge.
He said that lands would be owned by a race of Indian people. Everything on the reservation would be up in the air. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic. I'm scared of this case.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 was passed by Congress. When a child who is eligible for tribal membership ends up in state foster care, the law states that the child should be adopted by a tribe.
The law discriminates against Native American children as well as non- Native families who want to adopt them because of their race, according to lawyers for the Brackeens. They say they are political entities.
Legal scholars said that a decision against the tribes could affect their legal status as a nation with a unique relationship to the US government. The relationship has been the foundation of treaties and regulations for 250 years.
The I.C.W.A. will be struck down if the Supreme Court decides that tribal citizenship is based on race.
Matthew said that the consequences of changing the law were overstated. He said that the law deals with Indian child welfare cases that occur off tribal lands. Those cases are handled by tribal social workers and tribal courts.
The opponents of the families have marketed the trickle down effects.
More than a century of Native children have been forcibly removed from tribal homes by social workers and sent to government and missionary boarding schools. The children's fate has been the subject of an investigation by the interior secretary.
According to briefs signed by more than two dozen child welfare organizations, the goal of reunification is a gold standard. Building a Native child's connection to extended family, cultural heritage and community through tribal placement is inherent in the definition of "the best interests of the child" and a critical stabilizing factor when the child leaves or ages out of foster care.
The I.C.W.A. is dependent on an alignment of judges, resources and tribal notice. When a tribe received prompt notice and could press for support services, the rates of reunification or placement with a relative were higher than when the tribe did not intervene.
State social workers remove Native American children from their homes at a rate that is disproportionate to their population. The tribe said that the law was critical because of that. According to the Cherokee Nation, as of August it was working on over a thousand cases involving Native American children and state supervision.
The reasons for ruling against a tribe have to be clear and convincing.
In an interview with The New York Times, the Brackeens said that when they had two biological sons, they felt called by their evangelical Christian faith to help children.
A 10-month-old boy, known in court records as A.L.M., had been in the Texas foster care system. He was assigned to the group. The tribe's priority should be for foster care and adoption because of the tribe's matriarch. The tribe's placements fell through as the months went on. The boy's father's tribe agreed to allow the Brackeens to adopt the boy, who is now 7 years old.
Wanting to foster and perhaps adopt more Native American children but afraid of getting stuck in the same legal labyrinth, the Brackeens agreed to become lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by Texas, Louisiana, Indiana and other families.
Y.R.J., A.L.M.'s baby, was put into state care after her mother tested positive for meth when she was pregnant.
The baby's great-aunt, who lives on the reservation, was petitioned to have custody of the baby. The little girl would be living with her half brother, and the Brackeens wanted to adopt her.
The judge in Texas said that Y.R.J. would share custody with the great-aunt if they wanted to. The child would have to be brought to the reservation for extended stays.
The two tribes appealed. The court ordered a new trial.
The federal case went through two levels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had differing opinions on the law.
The Native American Rights Fund's brief was endorsed by nearly 500 tribes. Some of the briefs were signed by members of Congress. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association said that the law helped to heal physical and psychological trauma.
The I.C.W.A.'s challengers were supported by others. The law was said to violate state autonomy. Adoption lawyers filed briefs. The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, which is based in North Dakota, and the Goldwater Institute, a conservative policy center in Arizona, argued that the law was racist.
Each tribe has their own criteria for citizenship. One needs to be at least 25% related by blood to be a Navajo. Matrilineal descent is specified by some tribes. The Cherokee say that what matters is proof of a direct link to an original source list such as the Dawes rolls, compiled by the federal government in the late 19th century.
Some legal experts say that the Supreme Court could accept a compromise approach to the case, as long as it did not involve race. State family courts have a role to play in applying state law to child welfare cases. Texas believes that the I.C.W.A. is in violation of the 10th Amendment.
The primary author of a pro-I.C.W.A. brief for the American Historical Association said that the federal government has always been responsible for the welfare of Native children. She said that when the federal government tried to shut down its boarding schools in the 1930s, the states resisted.
States can pass their own versions if the Supreme Court strikes down the I.C.W.A. It would be hard for states to draft similar legislation if the justices struck it down.
It's hard to say where the Supreme Court will land. Regulations benefiting tribes are not unconstitutionally race-based according to the court in 1974. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas questioned the validity of the I.C.W.A.
The Brackeens have kept a low profile. They didn't want to be interviewed for this story. Their priority is to provide a loving home for their children.
They said, "We still work to maintain contact with biological families on both sides, as well as participating in age-appropriate culture-enriching activities, and visiting the reservations in Arizona and Oklahoma."
The representatives for the tribe didn't return calls.
After the Supreme Court rules on the case, the new Texas family court trial will be held.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
