Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ExCop-LawStudent

(147 posts)
5. Reposting my answer to another thread - the mother concealed the adoption from him
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:14 PM
Jun 2013

First, for consent to terminate rights of an Indian parent, the rights have to be terminated in the presence of a judge who must certify that the parent is aware of the consequences of the action. The SC courts held that it was undisputed that the father did not intend to terminate his parental rights.

Second, the birth mother cut off communications with the father and did not inform him of the birth, nor of her intent to place the child up for adoption. The father had wanted to move up their wedding date and get married. The birth mother also did not respond to the child's Indian grandmother who had money for her and handmade gifts for the child.

Third, both the birth mother and the adoptive parents tried to evade the law by providing an incorrect name and date of birth to the tribe, which must be notified under the ICWA. The birth mother stated that she did not want the tribe involved, contrary to the ICWA requirements.

Fourth, the birth mother misled the state by intentionally omitting the child's Indian heritage before the child was taken from Oklahoma. Oklahoma authorities make sure that a tribe is properly notified of any such removals. The birth mother said that telling the truth would just complicate the adoption.

Fifth, the adoptive parents intentionally waited to serve the father until just days before he was to be deployed with his Army unit to Iraq. The adoptive parents had been made aware of the ICWA, and according to the SC courts, had ignored the law.

Sixth, on being informed of the potential adoption, the father immediately sought to prevent it, filing legal challenges eight days after being informed.

Seventh, this is not a "race-based" law, it is a citizenship based law. Each tribe has the right to determine its own standards for citizenship, and the Cherokee Nation bases it on direct descent from a member on the Dawes Roll. Other tribes have a "blood quantum" requirement, from 1/2 (Mississippi Choctaw, White Mountain Apache), to 1/4 (Kiowa, Blackfeet, Hopi), to 1/8 (Comanche, Ft Sill Apache), to 1/16 (Caddo, NC Cherokee), to lineal descent (Cherokee Nation, Osage, Seminole, Shawnee). This is no different than if a child with American citizenship but only 3/256 American blood was being adopted against her American parent's will in a foreign country. You see, U.S. citizenship is also based on descent if born outside of the U.S.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Tough call, but I think the SCOTUS got it right. badtoworse Jun 2013 #1
+ 1 virgogal Jun 2013 #2
Nope ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #3
Read the story - that's not what happened badtoworse Jun 2013 #4
Reposting my answer to another thread - the mother concealed the adoption from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #5
How far is the child removed from the tribe with 3/256th heritage? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #7
I think it's ridiculous that 1% of her ancestry is enough to make her bound by Cherokee law. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #9
From the USA Today article badtoworse Jun 2013 #18
Sure, here you go ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #20
There seems to be a disagreement about the facts of the case badtoworse Jun 2013 #21
Exactly what adoption is that? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #22
Doesn't change my opinion badtoworse Jun 2013 #23
They shouldn't have hidden it from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #24
Here's my bottom line badtoworse Jun 2013 #25
Except your facts are wrong. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #26
I'm reacting to what I've read in the media and I'll concede the media could have it wrong. badtoworse Jun 2013 #30
3/256? That's about 1.18%. How does that even count as anything? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #6
It still qualifies the child ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #8
Well, she's 99% other, which should qualify her for protection under regular US adoption laws. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #10
No, but I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #11
So would you deny citizenship to a child born abroad to a US parent? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #12
I agree with giving US citizenship to a child based either on the citizenship of the parents. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #13
Which is why the law was enacted ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #14
The tribe almost certainly couldn't give a shit what happens to the child. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #15
The tribe cares more about her than these white people (the adoptive couple) do ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #16
What a pile of horseshit. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #17
I agree your post is a pile ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #19
I'm trying to understand something about this Orrex Jun 2013 #27
Tribal citizenship ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #28
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful answer Orrex Jun 2013 #31
except, what rights would the US actually have when American parents live out of country permanently rebecca_herman Jun 2013 #42
The US is a Contracting State under the Hague Convention ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #43
I read it, but I'm not seeing where it applies to the situation I described? rebecca_herman Jul 2013 #44
Sec. 26(2) & (3) state: ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #45
that's so ridiculous that my jaw dropped. and offensive. cali Jun 2013 #29
You just lost the debate with that racist statement. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #33
I didn't see anyone object to this statement ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #34
Because two wrongs always make a right. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #36
No, I did not ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #37
I am not taking sides on this but I think that a little history regarding the reasons behind this jwirr Jun 2013 #32
Well put. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #35
My sil has family that were treated similairly. The history is there for anyone to see. Do you know jwirr Jun 2013 #40
I don't know ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #41
This is a horrific case. Xithras Jun 2013 #38
Exactly right, plus he was at a distinct disadvantage ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court rules for a...»Reply #5