Blogger Note:
It would be intresting to know who much of this story may have to do with the following story below. It would be quite surprising if there is absolutely no connection but it appears that something fishy is going on.
---
Indian Child Welfare Act Violations Prompts ACLU Investigation Into South Dakota Foster Care System
ACLU Seeks Input from American Indian Families With Children in DSS
SIOUX FALLS, SD - The appalling treatment of American Indian children, family, and tribes by the South Dakota Department of Social Services as described in recent NPR News reports has prompted the ACLU of South Dakota to investigate the actions as violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
The NPR News series, "Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families," explains how American Indian children represent more than half of all children in foster care, yet account for less than 15 percent of the state's total child population. The report also features interviews from tribal members who recall DSS officials driving onto the reservation, removing children from homes, and preventing contact with family.
The report describes several instances of ICWA violations, as well as blatant disregard of fundamental Constitutional norms and international human rights as affirmed by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, according to Robert Doody Esq., Executive Director of the ACLU of South Dakota.
"The ACLU is firmly committed to addressing this most recent manifestation of racism and colonization in our state," Doody said. "It is shocking to see politicians and members of the government, who hold themselves out as "pro-family," react in utter contempt and callous disregard to the legitimate grievances of American Indians."
The ACLU of South Dakota wants to hear from American Indians who recently had children removed by DSS in order to ascertain the depth and breadth of the problem. Any American Indian with concerns regarding their experiences with or treatment by DSS should contact the ACLU at (605) 332-2508 or email southdakota@aclu.org.
###
Please direct media inquiries to Taté Walker, ACLU of South Dakota Communications Director: (605) 332-2508, (646) 421-9387 or twalker@aclu.org. For more information about the ACLU of South Dakota, visit www.aclusd.org, or find us on Facebook and Twitter.
http://www.aclusd.org/indian-child-welfare-act-violations-prompts-aclu-investigation-into-south-dakota-foster-care-system.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label south dakota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label south dakota. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Advocate Frank LaMere Talks About Battles Shaping Indian Child Welfare
By Stephanie Woodard
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has been in the news lately. A National Public Radio (NPR) series exposed horrific child-welfare injustices in South Dakota, while two CNN stories—one on the return of an infant boy to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and another on the return of a baby girl to her Cherokee father—criticized the law, and then-CNN anchor Campbell Brown added some scathing commentary. We went to Frank LaMere, member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and executive director of the Four Directions Community Center, in Sioux City, Iowa, for a reading on how perceptions of ICWA are changing and what still needs to happen to ensure state social-services departments and courts nationwide understand and fulfill its requirements. LaMere is a longtime advocate for Indian child welfare who works on a daily basis with Native families.
Has recent coverage of ICWA adversely affected the attitude toward Indian child welfare?
LaMere: The exposure brought attention to the plight of our children, and I am glad of that. As a result of the NPR coverage, members of Congress were inspired to ask for an investigation of South Dakota. I wrote to the legislators involved and told them, “Don’t stop there.” South Dakota has problems, but so does the rest of the country. They should investigate every jurisdiction in every state. Here in Iowa, the social services department of Woodbury County [surrounding Sioux City] has made progress, but it’s just one of our 99 counties. Many in Iowa would still do an end run around ICWA.
What did you think of CNN’s take on ICWA?
CNN and Campbell Brown need a reality check! Brown, as a mother, said she could not imagine the hurt a white family felt when their Indian child was returned to his people. Why could she not also imagine the hurt thousands of Native families feel right now, knowing their children will cry themselves to sleep tonight because someone did an end run of ICWA and stole their children under the “color of law”? Over the generations, hundreds of thousands of Indian families have endured this pain. That’s the grim reality. We must engage and educate ICWA detractors, and we must remind them that the Indian Child Welfare Act is the law of the land—whether they like it or not. And we must applaud the tribes and parents in these recent cases for persevering and those in the courts for reuniting them with the children.
Why do even states that seem to comply with ICWA—or at least seem to try—still have relatively high numbers of Native children in foster care?
We in Iowa are trying to better understand those numbers. Native families were not identified as such in the past, and perhaps now that we’ve drawn attention to them and are identifying them as such, the numbers are rising for that reason. Additional data I want is tracking of individual social workers’ records of pulling our families apart—or keeping them together. Once we have these numbers, we need to ask what their agencies are going to do about it. This needs to happen everywhere, and it needs to happen now.
How does a Native parent fare in child-custody matters when facing a non-Native parent?
Generally, not well. Right now, I’m dealing with the worst case I’ve ever seen and the best example of how the system can fail our families. Two severely disabled Native children were taken from their white father, a founded—that is, proven—child-abuser. After a crisis, during which one child ended up in the hospital, the court gave the youngsters temporarily to their Native mother. Now the state of Iowa has decided to reunite the children with the father, and the mother fears for her children’s lives. This is about old attitudes that make it tough for our Native families to get justice and to convince courts that ICWA, a federal statute, must be heeded.
Can you give some examples of what Native parents face?
I sit in on many meetings to determine the fate of Native families—along with the judges, lawyers, social workers and others involved—and I observe that they do not apply objective standards. If one standard were applied to all, Native children would go home more often than not. Time after time in these meetings, the Native parent has solved the issue—typically alcohol or drugs—that caused the children to be taken away. The parent proudly announces, “I’ve been sober for 22 months,” or what have you. We all congratulate them on their new wellness, then when that conversation dies down, a social worker inevitably says, “Well, yes, but… ” and raises a new issue. He or she may bring up a long-resolved problem from 20 years before, or something new. At a recent meeting, a social worker announced she’d found dirty dishes in the sink during her last visit to the mother’s home, so the mother shouldn’t get her kids back. I became unglued. I stressed that the mother didn’t lose her children over dirty dishes, and they couldn’t be kept from her for this reason. I deal with this kind of thing every week.
Do states have a financial incentive to ignore ICWA?
It’s a conspiracy of silence. Everyone knows our children feed the child-welfare system. They have for a long time and will continue to do so, because the funding is set up that way [with more children generating greater funding]. But those who work for the system won’t speak up. Beyond that, many social workers and courts nationwide feel they know better than we do about what’s good for our children. It remains for Native people to speak up. We must keep blowing the whistle on the child-welfare system, to local, state and national lawmakers. Only then will we have a chance to keep our families intact.
Is this what Four Directions does?
We at Four Directions Community Center routinely make people in the child-welfare system uncomfortable. Nothing changes until someone feels uncomfortable. That includes us. It is hard to confront those who control the systems that control our lives, but we must. Our children and their futures are in jeopardy. We have a long way to go, but we will prevail.
Click here to read our Q&A with Diane Garreau, ICWA director for South Dakota’s Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
Funding for this story was provided by the George Polk Program for Investigative Reporting.
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/14/advocate-frank-lamere-talks-about-battles-shaping-indican-child-welfare-95537
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has been in the news lately. A National Public Radio (NPR) series exposed horrific child-welfare injustices in South Dakota, while two CNN stories—one on the return of an infant boy to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and another on the return of a baby girl to her Cherokee father—criticized the law, and then-CNN anchor Campbell Brown added some scathing commentary. We went to Frank LaMere, member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and executive director of the Four Directions Community Center, in Sioux City, Iowa, for a reading on how perceptions of ICWA are changing and what still needs to happen to ensure state social-services departments and courts nationwide understand and fulfill its requirements. LaMere is a longtime advocate for Indian child welfare who works on a daily basis with Native families.
Has recent coverage of ICWA adversely affected the attitude toward Indian child welfare?
LaMere: The exposure brought attention to the plight of our children, and I am glad of that. As a result of the NPR coverage, members of Congress were inspired to ask for an investigation of South Dakota. I wrote to the legislators involved and told them, “Don’t stop there.” South Dakota has problems, but so does the rest of the country. They should investigate every jurisdiction in every state. Here in Iowa, the social services department of Woodbury County [surrounding Sioux City] has made progress, but it’s just one of our 99 counties. Many in Iowa would still do an end run around ICWA.
What did you think of CNN’s take on ICWA?
CNN and Campbell Brown need a reality check! Brown, as a mother, said she could not imagine the hurt a white family felt when their Indian child was returned to his people. Why could she not also imagine the hurt thousands of Native families feel right now, knowing their children will cry themselves to sleep tonight because someone did an end run of ICWA and stole their children under the “color of law”? Over the generations, hundreds of thousands of Indian families have endured this pain. That’s the grim reality. We must engage and educate ICWA detractors, and we must remind them that the Indian Child Welfare Act is the law of the land—whether they like it or not. And we must applaud the tribes and parents in these recent cases for persevering and those in the courts for reuniting them with the children.
Why do even states that seem to comply with ICWA—or at least seem to try—still have relatively high numbers of Native children in foster care?
We in Iowa are trying to better understand those numbers. Native families were not identified as such in the past, and perhaps now that we’ve drawn attention to them and are identifying them as such, the numbers are rising for that reason. Additional data I want is tracking of individual social workers’ records of pulling our families apart—or keeping them together. Once we have these numbers, we need to ask what their agencies are going to do about it. This needs to happen everywhere, and it needs to happen now.
How does a Native parent fare in child-custody matters when facing a non-Native parent?
Generally, not well. Right now, I’m dealing with the worst case I’ve ever seen and the best example of how the system can fail our families. Two severely disabled Native children were taken from their white father, a founded—that is, proven—child-abuser. After a crisis, during which one child ended up in the hospital, the court gave the youngsters temporarily to their Native mother. Now the state of Iowa has decided to reunite the children with the father, and the mother fears for her children’s lives. This is about old attitudes that make it tough for our Native families to get justice and to convince courts that ICWA, a federal statute, must be heeded.
Can you give some examples of what Native parents face?
I sit in on many meetings to determine the fate of Native families—along with the judges, lawyers, social workers and others involved—and I observe that they do not apply objective standards. If one standard were applied to all, Native children would go home more often than not. Time after time in these meetings, the Native parent has solved the issue—typically alcohol or drugs—that caused the children to be taken away. The parent proudly announces, “I’ve been sober for 22 months,” or what have you. We all congratulate them on their new wellness, then when that conversation dies down, a social worker inevitably says, “Well, yes, but… ” and raises a new issue. He or she may bring up a long-resolved problem from 20 years before, or something new. At a recent meeting, a social worker announced she’d found dirty dishes in the sink during her last visit to the mother’s home, so the mother shouldn’t get her kids back. I became unglued. I stressed that the mother didn’t lose her children over dirty dishes, and they couldn’t be kept from her for this reason. I deal with this kind of thing every week.
Do states have a financial incentive to ignore ICWA?
It’s a conspiracy of silence. Everyone knows our children feed the child-welfare system. They have for a long time and will continue to do so, because the funding is set up that way [with more children generating greater funding]. But those who work for the system won’t speak up. Beyond that, many social workers and courts nationwide feel they know better than we do about what’s good for our children. It remains for Native people to speak up. We must keep blowing the whistle on the child-welfare system, to local, state and national lawmakers. Only then will we have a chance to keep our families intact.
Is this what Four Directions does?
We at Four Directions Community Center routinely make people in the child-welfare system uncomfortable. Nothing changes until someone feels uncomfortable. That includes us. It is hard to confront those who control the systems that control our lives, but we must. Our children and their futures are in jeopardy. We have a long way to go, but we will prevail.
Click here to read our Q&A with Diane Garreau, ICWA director for South Dakota’s Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
Funding for this story was provided by the George Polk Program for Investigative Reporting.
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/14/advocate-frank-lamere-talks-about-battles-shaping-indican-child-welfare-95537
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Gov.: No useful data in NPR report on Indian children
By: Tom Lawrence
Gov. Dennis Daugaard said he didn’t gain any useful information from a controversial 2011 public radio series on American Indian foster children in South Dakota.
“I can’t identify any legitimate criticisms that identified an area where we could take action,” Daugaard said. “It raised my level of knowledge, but I think that’s a poor way to cause me to raise my level of knowledge, through a sensational story that was unfounded.”
Laura Sullivan, a National Public Radio investigative correspondent, produced a three-part series titled “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families” that was heard on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” in October.
The series said South Dakota was one of 32 states that did not comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and other laws. It said state social workers had entered Indian reservations with which the state has no agreement and removed tribal children from their homes.
Daugaard, who has said little publicly about the issue since the reports aired, said Monday the series was based on “unfounded” information.
“I think it’s very unfortunate that NPR decided that they were going to create a very sensationalistic story,” he said. “And it’s also unfortunate because it’s such a complex area.”
Daugaard made his comments during a discussion with The Daily Republic’s editorial board Monday morning at the newspaper’s office in Mitchell, following a public appearance the governor made earlier Monday morning in the city.
Sullivan had her mind made up when she arrived in South Dakota, the governor said, and didn’t want to hear anything that differed from what she believed. He said numerous state employees who spoke with her felt that way.
“It’s really a lot of misinformation and poorly researched information,” Daugaard said. “I think we did our best to refute much of it.”
According to a discussion of the series on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” the series raised valid points.
“An average of 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes and placed in foster care each year, often in violation of federal law, an NPR investigation found,” the “Talk of the Nation” report states. “Native American children make up less than 15 percent of the state’s child population, but represent more than half of the kids in foster care.”
“Some Native Americans believe the problem is that Native children who are placed in foster care with non-Native families, as most are in South Dakota, lose connection to their culture, traditions and tribes,” the NPR report stated.
The series also spotlighted Daugaard’s role as CEO of the Children’s Home Society, which deals with many foster children and received several contracts with the state that totaled more than $50 million. He was the state’s part-time lieutenant governor for eight years while also leading CHS.
Daugaard “pre-responded” to the NPR stories before they aired, sending e-mails to South Dakota media outlets that claimed Sullivan, whom he declined to speak with, was biased and unwilling to listen to all sides of the story.
He repeated those assertions Monday.
Daugaard pointed out that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had contracts with the Children’s Home Society since 1978, long before he worked for it.
Daugaard and his director of policy and communications and chief spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said they have been in contact with NPR’s ombudsman for six weeks and have expressed their unhappiness with the series.
An ombudsman is an intermediary between parties with a differing point of view. Many large media organizations have employed ombudsmen since the 1970s.
Edward Schumacher-Matos is NPR’s ombudsman.
He is a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and a former reporter, editor and columnist for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In his final online post of 2011, Schumacher-Matos said he would look into the story.
“Coming soon is a look back at an investigation of Native American foster care in South Dakota,” Schumacher-Matos wrote on Dec. 23.
He did not respond to an e-mail Monday from The Daily Republic asking for additional comment.
Daugaard said he’s glad NPR has someone who is “portrayed as being independent” taking a look at how Sullivan dealt with the story.
Source http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/61208/
Gov. Dennis Daugaard said he didn’t gain any useful information from a controversial 2011 public radio series on American Indian foster children in South Dakota.
“I can’t identify any legitimate criticisms that identified an area where we could take action,” Daugaard said. “It raised my level of knowledge, but I think that’s a poor way to cause me to raise my level of knowledge, through a sensational story that was unfounded.”
Laura Sullivan, a National Public Radio investigative correspondent, produced a three-part series titled “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families” that was heard on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” in October.
The series said South Dakota was one of 32 states that did not comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and other laws. It said state social workers had entered Indian reservations with which the state has no agreement and removed tribal children from their homes.
Daugaard, who has said little publicly about the issue since the reports aired, said Monday the series was based on “unfounded” information.
“I think it’s very unfortunate that NPR decided that they were going to create a very sensationalistic story,” he said. “And it’s also unfortunate because it’s such a complex area.”
Daugaard made his comments during a discussion with The Daily Republic’s editorial board Monday morning at the newspaper’s office in Mitchell, following a public appearance the governor made earlier Monday morning in the city.
Sullivan had her mind made up when she arrived in South Dakota, the governor said, and didn’t want to hear anything that differed from what she believed. He said numerous state employees who spoke with her felt that way.
“It’s really a lot of misinformation and poorly researched information,” Daugaard said. “I think we did our best to refute much of it.”
According to a discussion of the series on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” the series raised valid points.
“An average of 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes and placed in foster care each year, often in violation of federal law, an NPR investigation found,” the “Talk of the Nation” report states. “Native American children make up less than 15 percent of the state’s child population, but represent more than half of the kids in foster care.”
“Some Native Americans believe the problem is that Native children who are placed in foster care with non-Native families, as most are in South Dakota, lose connection to their culture, traditions and tribes,” the NPR report stated.
The series also spotlighted Daugaard’s role as CEO of the Children’s Home Society, which deals with many foster children and received several contracts with the state that totaled more than $50 million. He was the state’s part-time lieutenant governor for eight years while also leading CHS.
Daugaard “pre-responded” to the NPR stories before they aired, sending e-mails to South Dakota media outlets that claimed Sullivan, whom he declined to speak with, was biased and unwilling to listen to all sides of the story.
He repeated those assertions Monday.
Daugaard pointed out that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had contracts with the Children’s Home Society since 1978, long before he worked for it.
Daugaard and his director of policy and communications and chief spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said they have been in contact with NPR’s ombudsman for six weeks and have expressed their unhappiness with the series.
An ombudsman is an intermediary between parties with a differing point of view. Many large media organizations have employed ombudsmen since the 1970s.
Edward Schumacher-Matos is NPR’s ombudsman.
He is a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and a former reporter, editor and columnist for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In his final online post of 2011, Schumacher-Matos said he would look into the story.
“Coming soon is a look back at an investigation of Native American foster care in South Dakota,” Schumacher-Matos wrote on Dec. 23.
He did not respond to an e-mail Monday from The Daily Republic asking for additional comment.
Daugaard said he’s glad NPR has someone who is “portrayed as being independent” taking a look at how Sullivan dealt with the story.
Source http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/61208/
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Abuse, native foster care focus of Unity Rally - South Dakota
by David Montgomery
A small group of activists rallied Friday in Rapid City to protest sexual abuse of children and the state's foster care system.
The two-issue Unity Rally for the Children took place at 1 p.m. at Memorial Park. Addressing the issue of sexual abuse were Mayor Sam Kooiker and Robert Brancato, director of the Rapid City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Tate Walker of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and Evelyn Red Lodge, a reporter for the Native Sun News, talked about problems they see with the state's foster care system.
Galvanizing Kooiker and Brancato was a 2010 law limiting the time frame within which people can bring lawsuits for childhood sexual abuse. Both men say that statute of limitations should be repealed.
"It is time that South Dakota joins our friends in Montana and other states that have repealed the civil and criminal statutes of limitations on childhood sexual abuse," Kooiker said. "It's very important that victims have the right to bring this up later in life, to not have an arbitrary barrier stand in their way."
Brancato, an abuse survivor himself, pledged to "do everything I can" to rescind what he called "such a horrible law."
After Kooiker and Brancato spoke on sexual abuse, Walker and Red Lodge tackled the foster care issue. An NPR investigative report published this fall alleged that South Dakota's Department of Social Services violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act by placing Native American children in non-Native households.
Walker, of the ACLU, said her organization has been gathering stories of families who claim their children have been unjustly taken away by social workers.
"We are sad to say we've been very busy," Walker said. "Too many children and families have been affected and not in good ways."
State officials have disputed the accusations, saying they have placed as many Native American children as possible with Native families and only turn to non-Native foster parents and group homes as a last resort.
Walker said the ACLU is "investigating legal angles" to "bring justice to the families."
The rally was a one-shot event, Red Lodge said.
"This was just basically a group of concerned individuals who got together and said, ‘We've got to make a noise. We've got to get out there. We've got to let people know,'" she said.
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/abuse-native-foster-care-focus-of-unity-rally/article_c1048b36-2859-11e1-b1c0-001871e3ce6c.html
A small group of activists rallied Friday in Rapid City to protest sexual abuse of children and the state's foster care system.
The two-issue Unity Rally for the Children took place at 1 p.m. at Memorial Park. Addressing the issue of sexual abuse were Mayor Sam Kooiker and Robert Brancato, director of the Rapid City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Tate Walker of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and Evelyn Red Lodge, a reporter for the Native Sun News, talked about problems they see with the state's foster care system.
Galvanizing Kooiker and Brancato was a 2010 law limiting the time frame within which people can bring lawsuits for childhood sexual abuse. Both men say that statute of limitations should be repealed.
"It is time that South Dakota joins our friends in Montana and other states that have repealed the civil and criminal statutes of limitations on childhood sexual abuse," Kooiker said. "It's very important that victims have the right to bring this up later in life, to not have an arbitrary barrier stand in their way."
Brancato, an abuse survivor himself, pledged to "do everything I can" to rescind what he called "such a horrible law."
After Kooiker and Brancato spoke on sexual abuse, Walker and Red Lodge tackled the foster care issue. An NPR investigative report published this fall alleged that South Dakota's Department of Social Services violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act by placing Native American children in non-Native households.
Walker, of the ACLU, said her organization has been gathering stories of families who claim their children have been unjustly taken away by social workers.
"We are sad to say we've been very busy," Walker said. "Too many children and families have been affected and not in good ways."
State officials have disputed the accusations, saying they have placed as many Native American children as possible with Native families and only turn to non-Native foster parents and group homes as a last resort.
Walker said the ACLU is "investigating legal angles" to "bring justice to the families."
The rally was a one-shot event, Red Lodge said.
"This was just basically a group of concerned individuals who got together and said, ‘We've got to make a noise. We've got to get out there. We've got to let people know,'" she said.
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/abuse-native-foster-care-focus-of-unity-rally/article_c1048b36-2859-11e1-b1c0-001871e3ce6c.html
Friday, December 16, 2011
US officials plan South Dakota summit on Indian foster care
CHET BROKAW Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Federal officials are planning a summit in South Dakota in the wake of allegations that the state has violated federal law by removing too many American Indian children from their homes and placing them in foster care with non-Indian families.
Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Office of Indian Affairs, told The Associated Press that the agency has created a committee to plan the summit, the date of which has not yet been set.
"We hope it will open up a dialogue between tribes and federal and state agencies," Darling said.
The summit is in response to a National Public Radio series in October that said the state routinely broke the Indian Child Welfare Act and disrupted the lives of hundreds of Native American families each year. Federal law requires that Native American children removed from homes be placed with relatives or put in foster care with other Native American families except in unusual circumstances.
The three-part NPR report said 90 percent of the Native American children removed from their homes in South Dakota each year are sent to foster care in non-Indian homes or group homes. It reported that Native American children are placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate because only 15 percent of the state's child population is Native American, but half of the children in foster care are Native American.
State officials have criticized the NPR report as inaccurate, unfair and biased.
Kim Malsam-Rysdon, secretary of the state Department of Social Services, said the Interior Department has not notified state officials about the planned summit, but that the state has nothing to hide.
"We are very confident that South Dakota is in compliance with federal law in this area, and we really do welcome the opportunity for the federal government and others to understand just how that federal law is being implemented in our state," Malsam-Rysdon said.
The summit suggestion surfaced in a letter to members of Congress who had called for an investigation. The meeting is meant to give state, federal and tribal officials a way to work together so that all involved agencies comply with the law and make sure American Indian children and their families are protected, wrote Larry Echo Hawk, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for Indian Affairs.
The Interior Department also is considering sending lawyers to South Dakota to help tribes enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act, Echo Hawk wrote.
Malsam-Rysdon, whose agency oversees South Dakota's child welfare system, said people need to understand that the system involves her department, tribes, courts, law-enforcement officers and others. Federal officials should not take any action based on the NPR report, but instead should get the facts about what is happening in South Dakota, she said.
"We're glad the Department of Interior is taking it seriously, that they're evidently interested into looking into and ensuring the federal law is being implemented," she said.
Malsam-Rysdon said it's true that a disproportionate number of Native American children are involved in the child welfare system. The state receives more referrals for alleged abuse and neglect involving Native American children, and that leads to more investigations and removals from homes for those children, she said.
"What really permeates our involvement with the child welfare system is safety of the child," Malsam-Rysdon said. "We're involved in homes where there are proven or foreseeable safety concerns regarding a child."
In a written response to the NPR series, the state has said it uses all available Native American foster placement homes.
The series said the state's motive for removing Native American children from their homes might be financial because the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. The report said the state gets almost $100 million a year to subsidize foster care programs, but state officials said the budget for the entire Division of Child Protection Services last year was only $59 million, and spending specifically on foster care and foster-care support was just $8 million.
The series also said there was a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bids.
The governor's office responded that Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
State officials also have said the Department of Social Services cannot remove children from homes and place them in protective custody. Only law officers and judges have the legal authority to do so, the state officials said.
Source http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/mobile/article_e1ed29d6-1b91-59ab-bfe6-26801493047a.html
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Federal officials are planning a summit in South Dakota in the wake of allegations that the state has violated federal law by removing too many American Indian children from their homes and placing them in foster care with non-Indian families.
Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Office of Indian Affairs, told The Associated Press that the agency has created a committee to plan the summit, the date of which has not yet been set.
"We hope it will open up a dialogue between tribes and federal and state agencies," Darling said.
The summit is in response to a National Public Radio series in October that said the state routinely broke the Indian Child Welfare Act and disrupted the lives of hundreds of Native American families each year. Federal law requires that Native American children removed from homes be placed with relatives or put in foster care with other Native American families except in unusual circumstances.
The three-part NPR report said 90 percent of the Native American children removed from their homes in South Dakota each year are sent to foster care in non-Indian homes or group homes. It reported that Native American children are placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate because only 15 percent of the state's child population is Native American, but half of the children in foster care are Native American.
State officials have criticized the NPR report as inaccurate, unfair and biased.
Kim Malsam-Rysdon, secretary of the state Department of Social Services, said the Interior Department has not notified state officials about the planned summit, but that the state has nothing to hide.
"We are very confident that South Dakota is in compliance with federal law in this area, and we really do welcome the opportunity for the federal government and others to understand just how that federal law is being implemented in our state," Malsam-Rysdon said.
The summit suggestion surfaced in a letter to members of Congress who had called for an investigation. The meeting is meant to give state, federal and tribal officials a way to work together so that all involved agencies comply with the law and make sure American Indian children and their families are protected, wrote Larry Echo Hawk, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for Indian Affairs.
The Interior Department also is considering sending lawyers to South Dakota to help tribes enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act, Echo Hawk wrote.
Malsam-Rysdon, whose agency oversees South Dakota's child welfare system, said people need to understand that the system involves her department, tribes, courts, law-enforcement officers and others. Federal officials should not take any action based on the NPR report, but instead should get the facts about what is happening in South Dakota, she said.
"We're glad the Department of Interior is taking it seriously, that they're evidently interested into looking into and ensuring the federal law is being implemented," she said.
Malsam-Rysdon said it's true that a disproportionate number of Native American children are involved in the child welfare system. The state receives more referrals for alleged abuse and neglect involving Native American children, and that leads to more investigations and removals from homes for those children, she said.
"What really permeates our involvement with the child welfare system is safety of the child," Malsam-Rysdon said. "We're involved in homes where there are proven or foreseeable safety concerns regarding a child."
In a written response to the NPR series, the state has said it uses all available Native American foster placement homes.
The series said the state's motive for removing Native American children from their homes might be financial because the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. The report said the state gets almost $100 million a year to subsidize foster care programs, but state officials said the budget for the entire Division of Child Protection Services last year was only $59 million, and spending specifically on foster care and foster-care support was just $8 million.
The series also said there was a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bids.
The governor's office responded that Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
State officials also have said the Department of Social Services cannot remove children from homes and place them in protective custody. Only law officers and judges have the legal authority to do so, the state officials said.
Source http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/mobile/article_e1ed29d6-1b91-59ab-bfe6-26801493047a.html
Friday, November 11, 2011
Lawsuit involving foster child, DSS workers settled - SD
by Scott Waltman
A lawsuit alleging that officials should have known they were placing a girl in a potentially unsafe Aberdeen foster home has been settled without a trial.
Terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed, according to court paperwork.
The case was filed by a woman appointed to represent the girl against Northeastern Mental Health, two state Department of Social Services workers, the foster parents and another foster child. Documents concerning the settlement were sealed to protect the victim, according to case paperwork.
The Department of Social Services' Child Protection Services was responsible for care of the girl when Northeast Mental Health placed her with the Steve and Stephanie Schuman family of Aberdeen in December 2007, according to the lawsuit. The girl stayed with the foster family until March 2008 and turned 9 during that time.
A 17-year-old male "with a propensity to sexually act out" — one of the defendants — had previously been placed in the foster home. The lawsuit claims that the older boy sexually abused the girl during the time they lived in the same home. The defendants should have known the boy was a threat to the girl and failed to properly address the issue, according to the lawsuit.
Department of Social Services employees Amy Reyes and Laura Woolverton, who worked on the girl's case, were listed as defendants.
Agreements settle the case with the Schumans, Northeastern Mental Health, Reyes and Woolverton. The other foster child is not mentioned in the settlement.
Previously, a $25,000 proposed settlement from Northeast Mental Health and the Schumans had been rejected.
Source http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/aan-lawsuit-involving-foster-child-dss-workers-settled-20111110,0,7424685.story
A lawsuit alleging that officials should have known they were placing a girl in a potentially unsafe Aberdeen foster home has been settled without a trial.
Terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed, according to court paperwork.
The case was filed by a woman appointed to represent the girl against Northeastern Mental Health, two state Department of Social Services workers, the foster parents and another foster child. Documents concerning the settlement were sealed to protect the victim, according to case paperwork.
The Department of Social Services' Child Protection Services was responsible for care of the girl when Northeast Mental Health placed her with the Steve and Stephanie Schuman family of Aberdeen in December 2007, according to the lawsuit. The girl stayed with the foster family until March 2008 and turned 9 during that time.
A 17-year-old male "with a propensity to sexually act out" — one of the defendants — had previously been placed in the foster home. The lawsuit claims that the older boy sexually abused the girl during the time they lived in the same home. The defendants should have known the boy was a threat to the girl and failed to properly address the issue, according to the lawsuit.
Department of Social Services employees Amy Reyes and Laura Woolverton, who worked on the girl's case, were listed as defendants.
Agreements settle the case with the Schumans, Northeastern Mental Health, Reyes and Woolverton. The other foster child is not mentioned in the settlement.
Previously, a $25,000 proposed settlement from Northeast Mental Health and the Schumans had been rejected.
Source http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/aan-lawsuit-involving-foster-child-dss-workers-settled-20111110,0,7424685.story
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
ACLU to probe if SD breaks child-protection laws
Associated Press
The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating whether the South Dakota Department of Social Services violated federal law by removing Native American children from their homes and placing them in foster care instead of with relatives.
Tate Walker, an ACLU spokeswoman in Sioux Falls, said the civil rights organization has fielded individual complaints for years from families who said the state violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The law directs officials to place Native American children removed from homes with their relatives or tribes except in unusual situations.
But the cases had been too scattered and disparate to tackle, Walker said, until a recent National Public Radio series accused the state of routinely breaking the law and disrupting the lives of hundreds of Native Americans each year.
"That aired and then boom: We're getting calls left and right," Walker told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "The outcry was phenomenal, not only from people demanding that something be done, but also from several potential plaintiffs."
The ACLU investigation could lead to a potential lawsuit that would unite complainants as plaintiffs against the state.
The three-part NPR report described Native American children as being placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate: More than half of all children in foster care are Native American, despite them accounting for just 15 percent of the state's child population.
The series suggested that the motive might be money, since the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. It also suggested a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was a lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bid.
The governor's office criticized the report and went on the defensive even before the series began airing last week, releasing a memo titled "Setting the Record Straight" that accused NPR's reporter of being unfair and biased. According to the memo, Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
While Walker commended the NPR report, she said the ACLU isn't out to attack the governor.
"It's not about the governor. It's about these kids," she said. "They deserve someone to check into this."
At the center of the conflict, she said, is a merging of state, federal and tribal jurisdiction that is difficult to navigate. The ACLU hopes the spotlight on the issue will prompt new legislation to make it easier for child-protective services workers to do their jobs.
On its website, NPR describes the three-part series as the culmination of a yearlong investigation.
"Some children are removed from their homes for legitimate reasons," the series' introduction reads. "But in South Dakota very few are taken because they've been physically or sexually abused. Most are taken under a far more subjective set of circumstances."
After the series began airing, two members of Congress _ U.S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and Dan Boren, D-Okla. _ sent a letter to the Interior Department of Indian Affairs calling for an investigation.
"If the information on the NPR article is accurate, it would appear that the state of South Dakota has failed not only to abide by the mandates of federal law but also failed its Indian children, their families and their tribes by violating the letter and spirit" of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the congressmen wrote to Larry Echo Hawk, Indian Affairs' assistant secretary.
The federal law was passed in 1978 to help ensure that Native American children weren't separated from their families and tribes through involuntary removal.
Gubernatorial aide Tony Venhuizen told the Rapid City Journal it was unfortunate that two members of Congress representing other states didn't contact South Dakota officials before seeking an investigation into allegations about the state.
"These congressmen based their letter on an NPR report that was deeply flawed," he said. "It's really too bad that they took this step without even asking the Department of Social Services or anyone in South Dakota for the facts."
Walker, the ACLU spokeswoman, said the NPR piece highlighted an important and overlooked issue affecting Native American families.
"I have much respect for the (Department of Social Services) workers. I have to imagine that meeting all of the requirements they have to meet can get tricky," she said. "I think that some statutory legislative could potentially ease some of the burden."
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/aclu-to-probe-if-sd-breaks-child-protection-laws/article_2210024d-e8c1-5de7-a2d5-b2bcaacebf39.html
The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating whether the South Dakota Department of Social Services violated federal law by removing Native American children from their homes and placing them in foster care instead of with relatives.
Tate Walker, an ACLU spokeswoman in Sioux Falls, said the civil rights organization has fielded individual complaints for years from families who said the state violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The law directs officials to place Native American children removed from homes with their relatives or tribes except in unusual situations.
But the cases had been too scattered and disparate to tackle, Walker said, until a recent National Public Radio series accused the state of routinely breaking the law and disrupting the lives of hundreds of Native Americans each year.
"That aired and then boom: We're getting calls left and right," Walker told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "The outcry was phenomenal, not only from people demanding that something be done, but also from several potential plaintiffs."
The ACLU investigation could lead to a potential lawsuit that would unite complainants as plaintiffs against the state.
The three-part NPR report described Native American children as being placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate: More than half of all children in foster care are Native American, despite them accounting for just 15 percent of the state's child population.
The series suggested that the motive might be money, since the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. It also suggested a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was a lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bid.
The governor's office criticized the report and went on the defensive even before the series began airing last week, releasing a memo titled "Setting the Record Straight" that accused NPR's reporter of being unfair and biased. According to the memo, Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
While Walker commended the NPR report, she said the ACLU isn't out to attack the governor.
"It's not about the governor. It's about these kids," she said. "They deserve someone to check into this."
At the center of the conflict, she said, is a merging of state, federal and tribal jurisdiction that is difficult to navigate. The ACLU hopes the spotlight on the issue will prompt new legislation to make it easier for child-protective services workers to do their jobs.
On its website, NPR describes the three-part series as the culmination of a yearlong investigation.
"Some children are removed from their homes for legitimate reasons," the series' introduction reads. "But in South Dakota very few are taken because they've been physically or sexually abused. Most are taken under a far more subjective set of circumstances."
After the series began airing, two members of Congress _ U.S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and Dan Boren, D-Okla. _ sent a letter to the Interior Department of Indian Affairs calling for an investigation.
"If the information on the NPR article is accurate, it would appear that the state of South Dakota has failed not only to abide by the mandates of federal law but also failed its Indian children, their families and their tribes by violating the letter and spirit" of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the congressmen wrote to Larry Echo Hawk, Indian Affairs' assistant secretary.
The federal law was passed in 1978 to help ensure that Native American children weren't separated from their families and tribes through involuntary removal.
Gubernatorial aide Tony Venhuizen told the Rapid City Journal it was unfortunate that two members of Congress representing other states didn't contact South Dakota officials before seeking an investigation into allegations about the state.
"These congressmen based their letter on an NPR report that was deeply flawed," he said. "It's really too bad that they took this step without even asking the Department of Social Services or anyone in South Dakota for the facts."
Walker, the ACLU spokeswoman, said the NPR piece highlighted an important and overlooked issue affecting Native American families.
"I have much respect for the (Department of Social Services) workers. I have to imagine that meeting all of the requirements they have to meet can get tricky," she said. "I think that some statutory legislative could potentially ease some of the burden."
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/aclu-to-probe-if-sd-breaks-child-protection-laws/article_2210024d-e8c1-5de7-a2d5-b2bcaacebf39.html
Governor's office calls NPR foster care report flawed; congressmen seek review
Kevin Woster
Staffers for Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Monday attacked a National Public Radio report critical of state child-protection programs that remove Native American children from their homes for foster-care placement, saying NPR was biased and inaccurate in its reporting.
But two members of the U.S. House of Representatives thought the NPR report was valid enough to call for an investigation into whether those South Dakota child protection policies and practices with Native American families violate federal law.
U. S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Dan Boren, D-Okla., sent a letter to Larry Echo Hawk, assistant secretary of the Interior Department for Indian Affairs, calling for the investigation. They allege, as the NPR report implies, that South Dakota violates the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law that directs officials to place Native American children removed from homes with their relatives or tribes, except in unusual situations.
That is not being done in South Dakota, according to the NPR investigation.
"If the information on the NPR article is accurate, it would appear that the state of South Dakota has failed not only to abide by the mandates of federal law but also failed its Indian children, their families and their tribes by violating the letter and spirit of ICWA," Markey and Boren said in the letter.
They added that Native American children were being placed in non-Indian homes or group care at "alarming rates," for what "appears to be for profit."
The state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from the home.
The NPR investigative report also alleges conflicts of interest in Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. Children's Home Society received millions of dollars for housing Native children under contracts with the state awarded without competitive bid, a practice that has been used and criticized in other professional service areas.
Daugaard staffers have said the governor did not use political connections to get the contracts, which they say Children's Home Society was highly qualified to receive.
Daugaard's staff issued statements critical of the NPR report even before it was aired. The staffers followed up Monday with seven pages of detailed rebuttals to the NPR report and allegations of inaccuracies and bias.
Daugaard senior aide Tony Venhuizen said Monday that it was unfortunate that two members of Congress representing other states didn't contact South Dakota officials before seeking an investigation into allegations about the state.
"These congressmen based their letter on an NPR report that was deeply flawed," Venhuizen said. "It's really too bad that they took this step without even asking the Department of Social Services or anyone in South Dakota for the facts."
None of South Dakota's three congressional members would comment Monday on the NPR report or on the call for an investigation by Markey and Boren. Staffers for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., said they needed to learn more before responding.
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/governor-s-office-calls-npr-foster-care-report-flawed-congressmen/article_86743c68-0433-11e1-96d8-001cc4c002e0.html
Staffers for Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Monday attacked a National Public Radio report critical of state child-protection programs that remove Native American children from their homes for foster-care placement, saying NPR was biased and inaccurate in its reporting.
But two members of the U.S. House of Representatives thought the NPR report was valid enough to call for an investigation into whether those South Dakota child protection policies and practices with Native American families violate federal law.
U. S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Dan Boren, D-Okla., sent a letter to Larry Echo Hawk, assistant secretary of the Interior Department for Indian Affairs, calling for the investigation. They allege, as the NPR report implies, that South Dakota violates the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law that directs officials to place Native American children removed from homes with their relatives or tribes, except in unusual situations.
That is not being done in South Dakota, according to the NPR investigation.
"If the information on the NPR article is accurate, it would appear that the state of South Dakota has failed not only to abide by the mandates of federal law but also failed its Indian children, their families and their tribes by violating the letter and spirit of ICWA," Markey and Boren said in the letter.
They added that Native American children were being placed in non-Indian homes or group care at "alarming rates," for what "appears to be for profit."
The state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from the home.
The NPR investigative report also alleges conflicts of interest in Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. Children's Home Society received millions of dollars for housing Native children under contracts with the state awarded without competitive bid, a practice that has been used and criticized in other professional service areas.
Daugaard staffers have said the governor did not use political connections to get the contracts, which they say Children's Home Society was highly qualified to receive.
Daugaard's staff issued statements critical of the NPR report even before it was aired. The staffers followed up Monday with seven pages of detailed rebuttals to the NPR report and allegations of inaccuracies and bias.
Daugaard senior aide Tony Venhuizen said Monday that it was unfortunate that two members of Congress representing other states didn't contact South Dakota officials before seeking an investigation into allegations about the state.
"These congressmen based their letter on an NPR report that was deeply flawed," Venhuizen said. "It's really too bad that they took this step without even asking the Department of Social Services or anyone in South Dakota for the facts."
None of South Dakota's three congressional members would comment Monday on the NPR report or on the call for an investigation by Markey and Boren. Staffers for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., said they needed to learn more before responding.
Source http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/governor-s-office-calls-npr-foster-care-report-flawed-congressmen/article_86743c68-0433-11e1-96d8-001cc4c002e0.html
Saturday, October 29, 2011
South Dakota Kidnaps Indian Children and Sticks Them in White Foster Homes
by: Meteor Blades
Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 14:59:32 PM PDT
If you find typos here, it's because my hands are trembling in fury over the keyboard as I write this. That comes from reading Part 1 of National Public Radio's three-part report on yet another round of cultural genocide against the Indians of South Dakota. What it amounts to is state-sanctioned kidnapping. I hope that you'll take action to help bring an end to the continuing effort to separate Indian children from their families. Here are the bullet points from the kick-ass investigation Laura Sullivan and Amy Walters put together over 12 months:
• A 2005 study found that 32 states are, in various ways, failing to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Congress passed that law in 1978 after a century of federal policy had forcibly removed tens of thousands of American Indian children from their families and sent them off to abusive boarding schools.
• Under the law, social services agencies are supposed to place Indian children they remove from troubled homes into Indian foster-care homes. But that requirement is being ignored. And in South Dakota, more than 700 Indian children are removed from their families each year, often under questionable circumstances. Over the years, state records show, only 13 percent of these children have gone to Indian foster parents.
• Anecdotal evidence indicates that foster-care homes licensed to Indians are ignored by the state's social services agency when placing children removed from their families.
• Some children are taken for legitimate reasons, but most are removed because of "neglect," a fuzzy definition that often is arrived at because of a failure of the mostly non-Indian social-service workers to understand Indian culture. "[E]ven Native American children who grow up to become foster care success stories, living happy, productive lives, say the loss of their culture and identities leaves a deep hole they spend years trying hopelessly to fill," NPR reports.
• While Indian children make up less than 15 percent of the state's population, they are more than half the children in foster care. South Dakota receives thousands of dollars from the feds for every child it takes from a family, and typically gets more money if a child is Indian.
• South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugard once headed a group that was a major recipient of federal money provided for foster children. As lieutenant governor, he was on the group's payroll when it received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts, a "highly unusual relationship."
Meteor Blades :: South Dakota Kidnaps Indian Children and Sticks Them in White Foster Homes
"It enrages me," says Crow Creek tribal council member Peter Lengkeek. "We're very tight-knit families and cousins are disappearing. Family members are disappearing."
The Crow Creek tribe has lost more than 33 children in recent years. The reservation only has 1,400 people. Last year Lengkeek asked social service officials to tell him where the children were and who they were placed with.
Seven months later, he received a list. Lengkeek says every single child was placed in a white foster home.
He says if the state had its way, "we'd still be playing cowboys and Indians. I couldn't imagine what they tell these kids about where they come from and who they are."
"It's kidnapping," he says. "That's how we see it."
Except for the obvious reasons, many people may wonder why this matters so much to Indians, why it arouses our fury more intensely than just about any other conflict between Indians and non-Indians in today's world. That's because the foster-care program contains a powerful echo. Our rage arises out of a history that is, for many of us, devastatingly personal.
For instance, among Indians who participate in the Daily Kos group Native American Netroots, at least four of us have relatives who were yanked away from their families and sent to boarding schools (aji: great-grandmother; me, grandmother and great-aunt; navajo: mother; cacamp: grandparents, parents and himself).
Some went to government-run schools; others were taken in by church operations, Catholics and Mormons being among the prominent proponents of this approach to "civilizing" us.
In addition to being physically abused and treated as sexual prey in many cases, children in the boarding schools had their language, culture and religion yanked away. That wasn't collateral damage. It was the whole point. The concept behind the boarding schools, more than 150 of them by 1900, was "Kill the Indian...save the man," as noted in an 1892 Denver speech by Col. Richard H Pratt, founder of the U.S. Training and Industrial School at Carlisle Barracks, Pa. In short, demolish Indians by literally stealing their children.
Here's cacamp - Carter Camp - giving the short version of his boarding school story:
I was a repeat run-away same as my Mom, so I didn't graduate until I was 19. Mom never did because her Dad hid her from the agent after the first time. In my parents' day the schools were run like military academies where the kids marched in formation and drilled like soldiers. They had disciplinarians and jails and ran farms, which the students worked on to feed themselves. Those were the bad old days. By the time I got there, they were more benevolent but still strict about erasing our cultures. We still had to work on the farm two hours a day and more if we got in trouble.
The Navajo had it especially rough since they were forcefully rounded up like my parents were and taken up [to] Kansas, far from home, while the rest of us were sent by our parents because of poverty. We were high school age; so were the Navajo but they hadn't gone to any school before and most spoke no English so they had "special ed" and were segregated in different dorms. Funny thing though, we met and became friends with students from all over and later on became tribal leaders and American Indian Movement leaders who knew each other and could work together for things like tribal sovereignty.
Back then the Bureau of Indian Affairs agent stole the kids and ran roughshod over the parents and tribe. Today it's the State and the welfare system that is doing the same thing. We call our lost children "Lost Birds" after the baby girl who survived [the] Wounded Knee [massacre of 1890] and was adopted out to a white family but finally (recently) came home to her people to be buried again at Wounded Knee.
Each year we have "lost birds" coming home who have turned 18 and come seeking their families and yearning to learn their culture. Many times they don't even know who to ask for and sometimes they're quite old, grown up and with their own children looking for a connection to their past. Winter Rabbit reminded me of such a lost one. The majority of the stolen kids know their families and come home ASAP, so we have a large population of Indian kids who were brought up outside the tribe and have now come home. They almost all have stories of abuse. Only a few were lucky enough to find love and stability. Most are passed around in the system and bounce from foster home to foster home. This has been going on so long that thousands of lost ones are out there from every nation in America. It needs to stop.
Aji tells the story of her great-grandmother:
[My mom's grandmother] died without ever knowing who or what she was; it's taken a lot of work, years later, to piece her "self" together. Initially, the family thought she was of Scots descent, not realizing that the Scottish surname was that of her by-then-widowed mother's second husband. Her adoptive name was English. There is no record of what her traditional name (or any surname) might have been; they were more interested in covering up the very fact of adoption than anything else.
In the 1870s, the Catholic Church in Michigan was very invested in saving Indian children from an alleged "epidemic" of illness. What they were really doing was stealing kids and farming them out as fast as they could to reliably Catholic families who would ... "save the [wo]man by killing the Indian." No one knows how many were lost to white families via church theft. Hundreds, at a minimum. Probably thousands over the course of one generation alone. But one day in the late 1870s, a good white Catholic couple of English extraction left their home and traveled to the rez for two months, and came back bearing their new little Indian "papoose," promptly given a white name and identity, with never a reference to be made to the adoption, much less from where.
Ironically, when she married, her husband ran his father's logging business, and during the summer months, he traveled around the state; in his absence, she ran the business for him. She hired and fired - you guessed it - Indian laborers, some of whom were undoubtedly relatives, but neither side ever knew it. She died thinking that 1) she was English, and 2) she was the lineal descendant of those English "parents." To this day, I'm not sure how they explained the differences in coloring - probably via the "Gasp! That's not discussed in polite company" method.
Also ironically, after her adoption, her new parents went on to have nine biological children of their own. You'd've thought they could've been a little less greedy about acquiring someone else's child as a possession.
Nobody is suggesting that the foster-case system in South Dakota is treating Indian children the way the boarding schools did back, in Carter's words, in the "bad old days." Or that children are being snatched in quite the same way that the churches did decades ago. But many of today's Indian foster-kids are still losing their culture and the connection to their heritage.
Take the case of Janice Howe, one of the grandmothers that the NPR team focused on. Her four grandchildren, the children of her daughter Erin Yellow Robe, wound up in foster care despite the 1978 law.
Except rarely, that law requires that Indian children be placed with relatives, a tribal member or at the very least, another American Indian. And it requires states to do all they can to first keep a family together through services and programs. Surely, a grandmother qualifies.
But nothing Howe did over 18 months brought her grandchildren back until she told the Crow Creek tribal council that they were about to be put up for adoption. The council passed a resolution warning the state that if the Yellow Robe children were not returned, it would be charged with kidnapping and prosecuted. Nobody thought this would work, but it did.
"Antoinette came in and said 'Grandma, Grandma. We get to stay! We get to stay!'" ...
Howe thinks the babies were treated well. But Rashauna and Antoinette left a size 10 and came back a size smaller. Howe says they hoard food under their pillows and hide under the bed when a car pulls up.
"I feel like they were traumatized so much," Howe says.
The children don't remember their native dance, something Howe says is especially important for Antoinette, the oldest.
"We go to sweats," Howe says. "We have ceremonies at certain times a year. She's got to be getting ready to learn these things that she has to do in order to become a young lady. They took a year and a half away from us. How are we going to get that back?"
Among other tasks, Danny Sheehan works for the Lakota People's law office. He has about 150 case files on removals.
"These are all the different people who had their kids taken away from their entire families. ... Not one of them has had their children left with a relative of any kind."
He hopes one day he can sue. ...
"Maybe if we devoted all our resources to a particular case and said, look, we're going to land on you like a ton of bricks [social services] and make you give this one kid back and sue you and do everything else, they would probably just turn the kid loose," he says. "But it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't stop them from doing it a hundred times again."
But why should lawsuits be necessary? There is a law against what's being done. It's just not being enforced. A good deal of the reason for that is because the centuries-long efforts to make Indians disappear, to make us invisible, has succeeded. Our political clout in such matters, even in places where we can still be found in substantial numbers, is next to zero. The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act appears to us to be just another ignored bit of paper, like hundreds of treaties, and nobody official is doing squat about it. When it comes to invisible Indians who enforces the enforcers?
South Dakota Kidnaps Indian Children and Sticks Them in White Foster Homes | comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: navajo @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 14:35:43 PM CDT
[ Parent ]
-I'm really furious and disgusted with this guy:
Ten years ago, this group was in financial trouble. For several years, tax records show, it was losing money. Then in 2002, a former banker named Dennis Daugaard joined the team. He became the group's chief operating officer. A year later, he was promoted to executive director. And things began to change.
The money the group was getting from the state doubled under his leadership. Children's Home grew financially to seven times its size. It added two new facilities.
State records show it seized on a big opportunity. The state began outsourcing much of its work, such as training foster care parents and examining potential foster homes. Children's Home got almost every one of those contracts.
The group paid Daugaard $115,000 a year. But that wasn't his only job. He was also the state's lieutenant governor - and a rising star in state politics.
The seven years Daugaard spent at Children's Home - and his ability to turn the place around - were prominent features of his successful 2010 bid for governor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wexler wrote:
Sometimes I think the Nebraska child welfare system exists just to make everyone else look good. South Dakota tears apart families at the third highest rate in the nation; Nebraska is second worst (Wyoming is #1). The proportion of Native American children in foster care in South Dakota is four times their proportion in the general population, in Nebraska it's closer to seven times higher. Both states are among the ten worst when it comes to using the worst form of placement, group homes and institutions.
A culture of contempt for poor, minority families is deeply embedded in child welfare in much of the nation. That does enormous harm to children when they are torn from everyone they know and love - and it overloads child welfare systems so workers have less time to find children in real danger who really do need to be taken from their parents. Sadly, Nebraska and South Dakota are prime examples. Fortunately, there are many good people in child welfare systems trying to change this, and some states, such as Maine, Alabama and Illinois have made significant progress. Details are on our website.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
Thu Oct 27 07:56:46 2011
Richard Wexler wrote:
It's not just Indian children who are desperate to go home. Many children who "age out" of foster care head right back to their parents. Even when they can't live together, many former foster children maintain ties to their parents or other relatives.
Consider the results of a study of infants born with cocaine in their systems: One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the actual physical development of the infants was better when they were left in their own homes. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. That doesn't mean we can leave children with addicts - it does mean that drug treatment for the parent almost always is a better first choice than foster care for the child. And of course, many children are taken from parents whose only crime is poverty.
None of this means no child ever should be taken away. But foster care is an extremely toxic intervention that must be used sparingly and in small doses. But America has prescribed mega-doses of foster care, even when there are far better ways to keep children safe.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
Thu Oct 27 07:53:47 2011
Source http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1114/south-dakota-kidnaps-indian-children-and-sticks-them-in-white-foster-homes
Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 14:59:32 PM PDT
If you find typos here, it's because my hands are trembling in fury over the keyboard as I write this. That comes from reading Part 1 of National Public Radio's three-part report on yet another round of cultural genocide against the Indians of South Dakota. What it amounts to is state-sanctioned kidnapping. I hope that you'll take action to help bring an end to the continuing effort to separate Indian children from their families. Here are the bullet points from the kick-ass investigation Laura Sullivan and Amy Walters put together over 12 months:
• A 2005 study found that 32 states are, in various ways, failing to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Congress passed that law in 1978 after a century of federal policy had forcibly removed tens of thousands of American Indian children from their families and sent them off to abusive boarding schools.
• Under the law, social services agencies are supposed to place Indian children they remove from troubled homes into Indian foster-care homes. But that requirement is being ignored. And in South Dakota, more than 700 Indian children are removed from their families each year, often under questionable circumstances. Over the years, state records show, only 13 percent of these children have gone to Indian foster parents.
• Anecdotal evidence indicates that foster-care homes licensed to Indians are ignored by the state's social services agency when placing children removed from their families.
• Some children are taken for legitimate reasons, but most are removed because of "neglect," a fuzzy definition that often is arrived at because of a failure of the mostly non-Indian social-service workers to understand Indian culture. "[E]ven Native American children who grow up to become foster care success stories, living happy, productive lives, say the loss of their culture and identities leaves a deep hole they spend years trying hopelessly to fill," NPR reports.
• While Indian children make up less than 15 percent of the state's population, they are more than half the children in foster care. South Dakota receives thousands of dollars from the feds for every child it takes from a family, and typically gets more money if a child is Indian.
• South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugard once headed a group that was a major recipient of federal money provided for foster children. As lieutenant governor, he was on the group's payroll when it received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts, a "highly unusual relationship."
Meteor Blades :: South Dakota Kidnaps Indian Children and Sticks Them in White Foster Homes
"It enrages me," says Crow Creek tribal council member Peter Lengkeek. "We're very tight-knit families and cousins are disappearing. Family members are disappearing."
The Crow Creek tribe has lost more than 33 children in recent years. The reservation only has 1,400 people. Last year Lengkeek asked social service officials to tell him where the children were and who they were placed with.
Seven months later, he received a list. Lengkeek says every single child was placed in a white foster home.
He says if the state had its way, "we'd still be playing cowboys and Indians. I couldn't imagine what they tell these kids about where they come from and who they are."
"It's kidnapping," he says. "That's how we see it."
Except for the obvious reasons, many people may wonder why this matters so much to Indians, why it arouses our fury more intensely than just about any other conflict between Indians and non-Indians in today's world. That's because the foster-care program contains a powerful echo. Our rage arises out of a history that is, for many of us, devastatingly personal.
For instance, among Indians who participate in the Daily Kos group Native American Netroots, at least four of us have relatives who were yanked away from their families and sent to boarding schools (aji: great-grandmother; me, grandmother and great-aunt; navajo: mother; cacamp: grandparents, parents and himself).
Some went to government-run schools; others were taken in by church operations, Catholics and Mormons being among the prominent proponents of this approach to "civilizing" us.
In addition to being physically abused and treated as sexual prey in many cases, children in the boarding schools had their language, culture and religion yanked away. That wasn't collateral damage. It was the whole point. The concept behind the boarding schools, more than 150 of them by 1900, was "Kill the Indian...save the man," as noted in an 1892 Denver speech by Col. Richard H Pratt, founder of the U.S. Training and Industrial School at Carlisle Barracks, Pa. In short, demolish Indians by literally stealing their children.
Here's cacamp - Carter Camp - giving the short version of his boarding school story:
I was a repeat run-away same as my Mom, so I didn't graduate until I was 19. Mom never did because her Dad hid her from the agent after the first time. In my parents' day the schools were run like military academies where the kids marched in formation and drilled like soldiers. They had disciplinarians and jails and ran farms, which the students worked on to feed themselves. Those were the bad old days. By the time I got there, they were more benevolent but still strict about erasing our cultures. We still had to work on the farm two hours a day and more if we got in trouble.
The Navajo had it especially rough since they were forcefully rounded up like my parents were and taken up [to] Kansas, far from home, while the rest of us were sent by our parents because of poverty. We were high school age; so were the Navajo but they hadn't gone to any school before and most spoke no English so they had "special ed" and were segregated in different dorms. Funny thing though, we met and became friends with students from all over and later on became tribal leaders and American Indian Movement leaders who knew each other and could work together for things like tribal sovereignty.
Back then the Bureau of Indian Affairs agent stole the kids and ran roughshod over the parents and tribe. Today it's the State and the welfare system that is doing the same thing. We call our lost children "Lost Birds" after the baby girl who survived [the] Wounded Knee [massacre of 1890] and was adopted out to a white family but finally (recently) came home to her people to be buried again at Wounded Knee.
Each year we have "lost birds" coming home who have turned 18 and come seeking their families and yearning to learn their culture. Many times they don't even know who to ask for and sometimes they're quite old, grown up and with their own children looking for a connection to their past. Winter Rabbit reminded me of such a lost one. The majority of the stolen kids know their families and come home ASAP, so we have a large population of Indian kids who were brought up outside the tribe and have now come home. They almost all have stories of abuse. Only a few were lucky enough to find love and stability. Most are passed around in the system and bounce from foster home to foster home. This has been going on so long that thousands of lost ones are out there from every nation in America. It needs to stop.
Aji tells the story of her great-grandmother:
[My mom's grandmother] died without ever knowing who or what she was; it's taken a lot of work, years later, to piece her "self" together. Initially, the family thought she was of Scots descent, not realizing that the Scottish surname was that of her by-then-widowed mother's second husband. Her adoptive name was English. There is no record of what her traditional name (or any surname) might have been; they were more interested in covering up the very fact of adoption than anything else.
In the 1870s, the Catholic Church in Michigan was very invested in saving Indian children from an alleged "epidemic" of illness. What they were really doing was stealing kids and farming them out as fast as they could to reliably Catholic families who would ... "save the [wo]man by killing the Indian." No one knows how many were lost to white families via church theft. Hundreds, at a minimum. Probably thousands over the course of one generation alone. But one day in the late 1870s, a good white Catholic couple of English extraction left their home and traveled to the rez for two months, and came back bearing their new little Indian "papoose," promptly given a white name and identity, with never a reference to be made to the adoption, much less from where.
Ironically, when she married, her husband ran his father's logging business, and during the summer months, he traveled around the state; in his absence, she ran the business for him. She hired and fired - you guessed it - Indian laborers, some of whom were undoubtedly relatives, but neither side ever knew it. She died thinking that 1) she was English, and 2) she was the lineal descendant of those English "parents." To this day, I'm not sure how they explained the differences in coloring - probably via the "Gasp! That's not discussed in polite company" method.
Also ironically, after her adoption, her new parents went on to have nine biological children of their own. You'd've thought they could've been a little less greedy about acquiring someone else's child as a possession.
Nobody is suggesting that the foster-case system in South Dakota is treating Indian children the way the boarding schools did back, in Carter's words, in the "bad old days." Or that children are being snatched in quite the same way that the churches did decades ago. But many of today's Indian foster-kids are still losing their culture and the connection to their heritage.
Take the case of Janice Howe, one of the grandmothers that the NPR team focused on. Her four grandchildren, the children of her daughter Erin Yellow Robe, wound up in foster care despite the 1978 law.
Except rarely, that law requires that Indian children be placed with relatives, a tribal member or at the very least, another American Indian. And it requires states to do all they can to first keep a family together through services and programs. Surely, a grandmother qualifies.
But nothing Howe did over 18 months brought her grandchildren back until she told the Crow Creek tribal council that they were about to be put up for adoption. The council passed a resolution warning the state that if the Yellow Robe children were not returned, it would be charged with kidnapping and prosecuted. Nobody thought this would work, but it did.
"Antoinette came in and said 'Grandma, Grandma. We get to stay! We get to stay!'" ...
Howe thinks the babies were treated well. But Rashauna and Antoinette left a size 10 and came back a size smaller. Howe says they hoard food under their pillows and hide under the bed when a car pulls up.
"I feel like they were traumatized so much," Howe says.
The children don't remember their native dance, something Howe says is especially important for Antoinette, the oldest.
"We go to sweats," Howe says. "We have ceremonies at certain times a year. She's got to be getting ready to learn these things that she has to do in order to become a young lady. They took a year and a half away from us. How are we going to get that back?"
Among other tasks, Danny Sheehan works for the Lakota People's law office. He has about 150 case files on removals.
"These are all the different people who had their kids taken away from their entire families. ... Not one of them has had their children left with a relative of any kind."
He hopes one day he can sue. ...
"Maybe if we devoted all our resources to a particular case and said, look, we're going to land on you like a ton of bricks [social services] and make you give this one kid back and sue you and do everything else, they would probably just turn the kid loose," he says. "But it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't stop them from doing it a hundred times again."
But why should lawsuits be necessary? There is a law against what's being done. It's just not being enforced. A good deal of the reason for that is because the centuries-long efforts to make Indians disappear, to make us invisible, has succeeded. Our political clout in such matters, even in places where we can still be found in substantial numbers, is next to zero. The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act appears to us to be just another ignored bit of paper, like hundreds of treaties, and nobody official is doing squat about it. When it comes to invisible Indians who enforces the enforcers?
South Dakota Kidnaps Indian Children and Sticks Them in White Foster Homes | comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: navajo @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 14:35:43 PM CDT
[ Parent ]
-I'm really furious and disgusted with this guy:
Ten years ago, this group was in financial trouble. For several years, tax records show, it was losing money. Then in 2002, a former banker named Dennis Daugaard joined the team. He became the group's chief operating officer. A year later, he was promoted to executive director. And things began to change.
The money the group was getting from the state doubled under his leadership. Children's Home grew financially to seven times its size. It added two new facilities.
State records show it seized on a big opportunity. The state began outsourcing much of its work, such as training foster care parents and examining potential foster homes. Children's Home got almost every one of those contracts.
The group paid Daugaard $115,000 a year. But that wasn't his only job. He was also the state's lieutenant governor - and a rising star in state politics.
The seven years Daugaard spent at Children's Home - and his ability to turn the place around - were prominent features of his successful 2010 bid for governor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wexler wrote:
Sometimes I think the Nebraska child welfare system exists just to make everyone else look good. South Dakota tears apart families at the third highest rate in the nation; Nebraska is second worst (Wyoming is #1). The proportion of Native American children in foster care in South Dakota is four times their proportion in the general population, in Nebraska it's closer to seven times higher. Both states are among the ten worst when it comes to using the worst form of placement, group homes and institutions.
A culture of contempt for poor, minority families is deeply embedded in child welfare in much of the nation. That does enormous harm to children when they are torn from everyone they know and love - and it overloads child welfare systems so workers have less time to find children in real danger who really do need to be taken from their parents. Sadly, Nebraska and South Dakota are prime examples. Fortunately, there are many good people in child welfare systems trying to change this, and some states, such as Maine, Alabama and Illinois have made significant progress. Details are on our website.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
Thu Oct 27 07:56:46 2011
Richard Wexler wrote:
It's not just Indian children who are desperate to go home. Many children who "age out" of foster care head right back to their parents. Even when they can't live together, many former foster children maintain ties to their parents or other relatives.
Consider the results of a study of infants born with cocaine in their systems: One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the actual physical development of the infants was better when they were left in their own homes. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. That doesn't mean we can leave children with addicts - it does mean that drug treatment for the parent almost always is a better first choice than foster care for the child. And of course, many children are taken from parents whose only crime is poverty.
None of this means no child ever should be taken away. But foster care is an extremely toxic intervention that must be used sparingly and in small doses. But America has prescribed mega-doses of foster care, even when there are far better ways to keep children safe.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
Thu Oct 27 07:53:47 2011
Source http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1114/south-dakota-kidnaps-indian-children-and-sticks-them-in-white-foster-homes
Thursday, October 27, 2011
SD - State Dicks Over Hundreds Of Native American Children
Imagine having social workers show up to your home to take your twin babies because someone spread an unsubstantiated rumor that you were abusing prescription drugs. Two months later, your two young daughters don't come home on the bus, and later you learn they were taken from school and put in foster care. Yeah, this happened.
That's what Erin Yellow Robe claims happened to her several years ago, and a major investigation by NPR has revealed that there are many more Native Americans who say their children are being illegally taken from them. The situation is particularly troubling in South Dakota, where 700 Native American children are removed from their homes per year. Both the state's reasons for taking the children, and the way they place them with foster families, are questionable.......
However, many believe that money is the real motivation. States receive thousands in federal funding for every child removed from their home, and they get even more for Native American children. A former governor admitted that since the state is poor, federal money for social services is "incredibly important."
Read the rest of the article here:
http://jezebel.com/5853412/state-dicks-over-hundreds-of-native-american-children
That's what Erin Yellow Robe claims happened to her several years ago, and a major investigation by NPR has revealed that there are many more Native Americans who say their children are being illegally taken from them. The situation is particularly troubling in South Dakota, where 700 Native American children are removed from their homes per year. Both the state's reasons for taking the children, and the way they place them with foster families, are questionable.......
However, many believe that money is the real motivation. States receive thousands in federal funding for every child removed from their home, and they get even more for Native American children. A former governor admitted that since the state is poor, federal money for social services is "incredibly important."
Read the rest of the article here:
http://jezebel.com/5853412/state-dicks-over-hundreds-of-native-american-children
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
A Fight For Her Grandchildren Mirrors A Native Past
Suzanne Crow, 58, has made and received a lot of bad telephone calls in her life, including the time she told her family that her 3-year-old son had died in a hospital because there wasn't a doctor on duty to care for him. Life in South Dakota as a displaced member of the Lakota and Dakota Sioux tribes can be tougher than most.
But the phone call she received on a sunny May day in 2007, Crow says, is still one of the worst. A distant relative had just driven by her home in Sioux Falls, and Crow says what she heard instantly connected her past to her present, bringing the next several years of her life to a near stop.
"The cops are at Lena's house," Crow said the relative told her. "I think they're taking your grandchildren."
Read the rest of this story here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141650809/a-fight-for-her-grandchildren-mirrors-a-native-past
But the phone call she received on a sunny May day in 2007, Crow says, is still one of the worst. A distant relative had just driven by her home in Sioux Falls, and Crow says what she heard instantly connected her past to her present, bringing the next several years of her life to a near stop.
"The cops are at Lena's house," Crow said the relative told her. "I think they're taking your grandchildren."
Read the rest of this story here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141650809/a-fight-for-her-grandchildren-mirrors-a-native-past
Report: S.D. skirts law protecting Native American children
By Melanie Eversley, USA TODAY
Thirty-two states are failing to abide by the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to stop thousands of Native American children from being forcibly removed from their families and being sent to boarding schools, where they were abused, or into other abusive conditions, a National Public Radio investigation has found.
The problem is most pronounced in South Dakota, NPR reports.
"Cousins are disappearing, family members are disappearing," Peter Lengkeek, a Crow Creek Tribal Council member, tells NPR. "It's kidnapping. That's how we see it."
About 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes, some of them under questionable circumstances, NPR finds. The majority of those placed in foster care are sent to non-native homes or group homes, although the Child Welfare Act requires that Native American children must be placed with their relatives or tribes, except in rare circumstances.
South Dakota state officials say they have to do what's in the best interest of the child.
"We come from a stance of safety," Virgena Wieseler of South Dakota's Department of Social Services tells NPR. "That's our overarching goal with all children. If they can be returned to their parent or returned to a relative and be safe and that safety can be managed, then that's our goal."
Critics say the situation appears to be financially lucrative for foster care providers, one of whom has ties with state officials, NPR reports.
Source http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-south-dakota-skirts-law-protecting-native-american-children/1
Thirty-two states are failing to abide by the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to stop thousands of Native American children from being forcibly removed from their families and being sent to boarding schools, where they were abused, or into other abusive conditions, a National Public Radio investigation has found.
The problem is most pronounced in South Dakota, NPR reports.
"Cousins are disappearing, family members are disappearing," Peter Lengkeek, a Crow Creek Tribal Council member, tells NPR. "It's kidnapping. That's how we see it."
About 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes, some of them under questionable circumstances, NPR finds. The majority of those placed in foster care are sent to non-native homes or group homes, although the Child Welfare Act requires that Native American children must be placed with their relatives or tribes, except in rare circumstances.
South Dakota state officials say they have to do what's in the best interest of the child.
"We come from a stance of safety," Virgena Wieseler of South Dakota's Department of Social Services tells NPR. "That's our overarching goal with all children. If they can be returned to their parent or returned to a relative and be safe and that safety can be managed, then that's our goal."
Critics say the situation appears to be financially lucrative for foster care providers, one of whom has ties with state officials, NPR reports.
Source http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-south-dakota-skirts-law-protecting-native-american-children/1
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Paper Orphans - From Voices Of Women
The Adoption and Safe Families Act, (ASFA), was passed in 1997 by the US Congress. The purpose of this Bill was to protect children from lingering in foster care. In some cases children were literally being lost in foster care in some of America’s larger cities. The idea was to find permanent placement for children within a designated time frame. Attached to this movement of children would be financial incentives and bonuses to states for compliance with mandates. Thus, the Child Abuse Industry in America was now, subsidized by the Federal Government.
One would hope that ASFA would make our children safer, at lower risk for neglect, abuse, and lower numbers of children in foster care. This has not been the case! In my opinion the goals of ASFA have grossly failed! ASFA demands that the child welfare agency be responsible for ensuring the safety of children in out-of-home care. Yet, nationwide hundreds of children have died while in the care of “professional parents”.
The actual outcome of ASFA has been a higher number of children in foster care. There has been a massive increase in parental terminations, and adoptions of America’s children. The issue that needs to be pointed out here, is that not only are the parent’s rights to have a relationship with their children terminated, all family members are terminated from having a relationship with these children.
Who is really benefiting from ASFA? The professional parents (foster/adoptive parents), the contracted mental health care providers, the residential and treatment centers, the growing demand for more social workers being hired to handle the caseloads, etc. According to statistics from the National Child Protection Reform each child that is in the system generates an estimated residual economic development figure of $250,000.00 or more per year! This tells me that our children are being harvested as a subsidized cash crop. When the market numbers increase then dividends in the form of bonuses are paid to the states.
The children who are being protected from their parents, (who are rarely if ever charged under any criminal abuse or neglect statue) are going to age out of the system without an adequate education, little or no social skills, little or no work experience, disenfranchised from their families and communities, on psychotropic drugs. What future does that hold for them? What are the residual costs to the taxpayers going to be? Are we just grooming our youth for their eventual commitment to our prison systems?
All of the proceedings that take place (with the exception of the rare criminal abuse charges,) are done by Administrative proceedings under a veil of secrecy. There is no jury, no evidence, only hearsay of the Case Worker, no witnesses or open trail, because of “the child’s confidentiality”. I don’t know of one case where the child(ren) were present in court to testify. The parents are adjudicated and placed on the Nation Registry of Child Abusers. They lose their family. They are told by everyone who hears their story, “They can’t do that!” But the fact remains it was done, is being done and will continue to be done until American families stand together to demand that their Constitutional right to parent their children is restored, and that the child protection system be reformed. However, they don’t do that for fear they will some how suffer further consequences from the State. Or they believe the biggest lie…parents in America have all gone mad and only professional parents and social workers care about and are capable of loving these “poor” children!
I am not suggesting, nor do I believe that there are not children who are being abused. What I am saying is that thousands of children are being removed arbitrarily and without substantiated cause from their homes. Some of these families only needed services that could’ve been provided with the children still in the home. I would like to note that according to national statistics children in foster care are at much higher risk of sexual and physical abuse then in the home of their parents. Federal legislation provides a foundation for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
After huge class action lawsuits were brought against 32 states, 30 of them reformed their child protection policies with great success in focusing on family preservation and in-home family services that reduced the cost to taxpayers and made children safer.
I know that most of you are thinking to yourself, “These parents have abused their children and are in denial, blaming the system.” According to the statistics filed with the Child Welfare League of America (www. cwla.org) prior to ASFA in 1998 there were 55 adoptions in South Dakota and no children waiting to be adopted, 5 years later there were 144 adoptions and a staggering 464 children waiting to be adopted. The state last year received an adoption bonus of $56,000.00 for adoptions over their baseline number. Residential foster care in 2000 cost taxpayers in $4,498,452.00. Two years later in 2002 that amount had increased to $17,212,505.00! Folks, this is about the money, not about protecting children! From 1996 to 2004 the federal budget increased in SD by 128.6% and the state budget by 53.0%! Did all the parents in SD just start going nuts on their children over that six-year period? I think not! I believe money and economic development in the newly subsidized child abuse industry increased these numbers.
South Dakota has a 9% total Native American population, according to the Governor’s Commission on the Indian Child Welfare Act. Yet more than 65% of the children removed from the home are Native American. I believe this number, is also motivated by funding and opportunity. South Dakota has a statue that allows the Secretary of Social Services to collect funding from the Department of Interior for the cost of their care. Thus, Indian children are worth double the money to the state. Even though this has been denied by DSS at Appropriations and Government Operation and Audit Committee meetings, I find it hard to believe that they would go to the trouble of having legislation drafted for such an action and not utilize it. (Chapter 28 SDCL)
In a recent Rapid City Journal article it stated that 81% of the children were taken for reasons of neglect. What the Social Workers view as neglect is arbitrary. Virtually anything can be used against parents to justify the interrogation of your children at schools by police officers, social workers and counselors to intimidate children, ask leading and open ended questions that are used to ultimately destroy the family. These children then are removed from the school without the knowledge of the parents and placed in foster care. Poverty and its effects are often confused with neglect. Instead of the state, social and community organizations helping these parents overcome the financial struggles they suffer their children they are ripped from their lives.
The Government does not exist for any other reason than to protect the interests of the individual. The Government has no rights, only powers and duties. There is no provision for this non-governmental action in our Constitution. In fact the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled at least fifteen times on the right of parents to raise own their children.
The state of South Dakota has statues that forbid the State, it’s officers or agent to violate the Constitution or US Supreme Court rulings. See SDCL 1-1A-1 and 1-1A-2. In Lehr vs. Robertson, 463 US 248,) The linkage between parental duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. Massachusetts ... The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” In these cases, the Court has found that the relationship of love and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutional protection ... “State intervention to terminate such a relationship ... must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause” Santosky v. Kramer .
America’s children are not safer. Families are not being honored as the most primary social structure of our culture. The very foundation of a child’s normal development is being disassembled by states. The States create the problem, than they are the solution. The States create orphans, than they are the adoption agency.
* THIS ARTICLE WILL BE FEATURED IN THE JAN/FEB 2007 ISSUE OF WELL NATIONS MAGAZINE www.wellnations.com
Source: http://www.freewebs.com/voiceofwomen/
One would hope that ASFA would make our children safer, at lower risk for neglect, abuse, and lower numbers of children in foster care. This has not been the case! In my opinion the goals of ASFA have grossly failed! ASFA demands that the child welfare agency be responsible for ensuring the safety of children in out-of-home care. Yet, nationwide hundreds of children have died while in the care of “professional parents”.
The actual outcome of ASFA has been a higher number of children in foster care. There has been a massive increase in parental terminations, and adoptions of America’s children. The issue that needs to be pointed out here, is that not only are the parent’s rights to have a relationship with their children terminated, all family members are terminated from having a relationship with these children.
Who is really benefiting from ASFA? The professional parents (foster/adoptive parents), the contracted mental health care providers, the residential and treatment centers, the growing demand for more social workers being hired to handle the caseloads, etc. According to statistics from the National Child Protection Reform each child that is in the system generates an estimated residual economic development figure of $250,000.00 or more per year! This tells me that our children are being harvested as a subsidized cash crop. When the market numbers increase then dividends in the form of bonuses are paid to the states.
The children who are being protected from their parents, (who are rarely if ever charged under any criminal abuse or neglect statue) are going to age out of the system without an adequate education, little or no social skills, little or no work experience, disenfranchised from their families and communities, on psychotropic drugs. What future does that hold for them? What are the residual costs to the taxpayers going to be? Are we just grooming our youth for their eventual commitment to our prison systems?
All of the proceedings that take place (with the exception of the rare criminal abuse charges,) are done by Administrative proceedings under a veil of secrecy. There is no jury, no evidence, only hearsay of the Case Worker, no witnesses or open trail, because of “the child’s confidentiality”. I don’t know of one case where the child(ren) were present in court to testify. The parents are adjudicated and placed on the Nation Registry of Child Abusers. They lose their family. They are told by everyone who hears their story, “They can’t do that!” But the fact remains it was done, is being done and will continue to be done until American families stand together to demand that their Constitutional right to parent their children is restored, and that the child protection system be reformed. However, they don’t do that for fear they will some how suffer further consequences from the State. Or they believe the biggest lie…parents in America have all gone mad and only professional parents and social workers care about and are capable of loving these “poor” children!
I am not suggesting, nor do I believe that there are not children who are being abused. What I am saying is that thousands of children are being removed arbitrarily and without substantiated cause from their homes. Some of these families only needed services that could’ve been provided with the children still in the home. I would like to note that according to national statistics children in foster care are at much higher risk of sexual and physical abuse then in the home of their parents. Federal legislation provides a foundation for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
After huge class action lawsuits were brought against 32 states, 30 of them reformed their child protection policies with great success in focusing on family preservation and in-home family services that reduced the cost to taxpayers and made children safer.
I know that most of you are thinking to yourself, “These parents have abused their children and are in denial, blaming the system.” According to the statistics filed with the Child Welfare League of America (www. cwla.org) prior to ASFA in 1998 there were 55 adoptions in South Dakota and no children waiting to be adopted, 5 years later there were 144 adoptions and a staggering 464 children waiting to be adopted. The state last year received an adoption bonus of $56,000.00 for adoptions over their baseline number. Residential foster care in 2000 cost taxpayers in $4,498,452.00. Two years later in 2002 that amount had increased to $17,212,505.00! Folks, this is about the money, not about protecting children! From 1996 to 2004 the federal budget increased in SD by 128.6% and the state budget by 53.0%! Did all the parents in SD just start going nuts on their children over that six-year period? I think not! I believe money and economic development in the newly subsidized child abuse industry increased these numbers.
South Dakota has a 9% total Native American population, according to the Governor’s Commission on the Indian Child Welfare Act. Yet more than 65% of the children removed from the home are Native American. I believe this number, is also motivated by funding and opportunity. South Dakota has a statue that allows the Secretary of Social Services to collect funding from the Department of Interior for the cost of their care. Thus, Indian children are worth double the money to the state. Even though this has been denied by DSS at Appropriations and Government Operation and Audit Committee meetings, I find it hard to believe that they would go to the trouble of having legislation drafted for such an action and not utilize it. (Chapter 28 SDCL)
In a recent Rapid City Journal article it stated that 81% of the children were taken for reasons of neglect. What the Social Workers view as neglect is arbitrary. Virtually anything can be used against parents to justify the interrogation of your children at schools by police officers, social workers and counselors to intimidate children, ask leading and open ended questions that are used to ultimately destroy the family. These children then are removed from the school without the knowledge of the parents and placed in foster care. Poverty and its effects are often confused with neglect. Instead of the state, social and community organizations helping these parents overcome the financial struggles they suffer their children they are ripped from their lives.
The Government does not exist for any other reason than to protect the interests of the individual. The Government has no rights, only powers and duties. There is no provision for this non-governmental action in our Constitution. In fact the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled at least fifteen times on the right of parents to raise own their children.
The state of South Dakota has statues that forbid the State, it’s officers or agent to violate the Constitution or US Supreme Court rulings. See SDCL 1-1A-1 and 1-1A-2. In Lehr vs. Robertson, 463 US 248,) The linkage between parental duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. Massachusetts ... The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” In these cases, the Court has found that the relationship of love and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutional protection ... “State intervention to terminate such a relationship ... must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause” Santosky v. Kramer .
America’s children are not safer. Families are not being honored as the most primary social structure of our culture. The very foundation of a child’s normal development is being disassembled by states. The States create the problem, than they are the solution. The States create orphans, than they are the adoption agency.
* THIS ARTICLE WILL BE FEATURED IN THE JAN/FEB 2007 ISSUE OF WELL NATIONS MAGAZINE www.wellnations.com
Source: http://www.freewebs.com/voiceofwomen/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)