[Indexed as: “Indian Adoption vs. ‘Kidnaping’ Answers Sought,” Independent (Gallup, N.M.), Apr. 23, 1974]

WASHINGTON D.C. — At what point does governmental intrusion, whether federal, state or local into Indian family life to protect a child become “kidnaping” and “cultural genocide,” and what should be the role of a tribal government in this area?

These questions were at the heart of testimony taken from about 30 witnesses by the Senate Indian Affairs Subcommittee in two days of hearings April 8-9 to document what Committee Chairman Sen. James D. Abourezk, D-S.D., called “abusive child removal practices which are destroying Indian families.”

Lead-off witness William Byler, executive director of the Association on American Indian Affairs, stated that based on his organization’s surveys, “approximately 25 to 35 per cent of all Indian children are separated from their families and placed in foster homes, adoptive homes, or institutions.” Institutions were defined by Byler as federal or mission boarding schools or state training schools.

Byler cited the following statistics: In Minnesota the rate of adoption of Indian children per capita is five times greater than that of non Indian children; in South Dakota the foster care rate is nearly 16 times greater per capita; in Washington state the adoption rate is 19 times greater, the foster care rate 10 times greater; in Michigan, 16 times greater.

A number of Indian parents before the subcommittee recited a litany of abuses they and their children suffered at the hands of state and county welfare workers eager to remove the children from what they deemed a home environment of “neglect” or “social deprivation.”

Margaret Townsend (Paiute) of Fallen, Nev., described how her children were forcibly taken from her home without her consent and placed in foster care homes by county welfare workers after she had been arrested — her first arrest — for driving while intoxicated. With the aid of an MIA attorney Mrs. Townsend was finally able to get a court to release her children from the custody of the county and return them to her.

Her daughter Anna was also a witness. Anna was supposed to describe to the subcommittee the treatment she and her younger brother endured in their foster home. Instead, Anna gave more effective testimony. After a brave start; she broke down and cried.

Other witnesses told of outright abduction of Indian children from their parents Byler of AAIA told how Benita Rowland had been taken by two Wisconsin women with the collusion of a local missionary from South Dakota after her Oglala Sioux mother was tricked into signing a form purportedly granting them permission to take the child on a short visit but, in fact, agreeing to her adoption. It was months before Mrs. Rowland could obtain counsel and regain her daughter.

Governmental intrusion in to the privacy of family life is not confined to Indian families. However, witnesses testified to the qualitative differences between removal of non-Indian children and that of Indian children.

Non-Indian children are taken into custody by the government when, said two physician witnesses, the child has no recognized or legally appointed guardian, that is, is dependent or abandoned; when the child has been involved in delinquent acts; when the child’s needs are not being met by the family, constituting neglect; and when the child is being physically abused.

According to the witnesses, Indian children are removed for the above reasons and in addition for the following reasons: to meet the educational needs of the child, or because a social worker does not feel the reservation is a fit place for any child to be brought up, or because the lowered birth rate in the dominant race leaves fewer children available for adoption, and thus Indian children are considered “fair game.”

The effects of these unwarranted removals and placements with non-Indians are psychologically disastrous for both parents and children, according to witnesses. Gov. Robert E. Lewis, president of the National Tribal Chairmen’s association (NTCA), said:

“Children who must adjust to a new way of life away from their own cultural group often must overcome a language barrier, adjust to a new religion, learn new foods and are often faced with overt and covert racism.”

Melvin Sampson, Yakima tribal councilman, while acknowledging the good intentions of non-Indians who adopt Indian children, said: “The damaging effect this creates on our Indian children is beyond the scope of evaluation. The Indian is on the receiving end of a total lack of understanding.

They literally surfer when they discover that their physical appearance is not that or their adopted parents. The wonderment and search for true identity is crucial and probably, at times never completed.”

The causes of this latter day “Indian removal” campaign were described by witnesses as follows: a lack of standards for what constitutes mistreatment that is relevant to Indian culture; failure of social workers and courts to follow ‘due process of law”; strictures in taking children away from parents; social conditions in Indian families such as low income, poor health and substandard housing which make Indian children prime targets for removal.

One particular problem stems directly from the inadequacy of tribal courts to cope with demands by social workers that they authorized the removal of a child. According to witnesses, they have no independent means of either experts or resources to judge the validity of a request by a social worker to remove a child from his home. In states where tribes have lost civil and criminal jurisdiction over their reservation under Public Law 280, the situation is even worse because the tribes have absolutely no role in removal.

The BIA also came under fire at the hearings for its role or lack of it in this area. A witness charged that the BIA is spending over $1,040,000 in Minnesota to provide for foster care payments. Since it is a PL 280 state, Minnesota should be picking up this expense, according to Abourezk aide Sherwin Brodhead.

Recommendations for reform by witnesses included repeal of PL 280 so affected tribes will have more control over what happens to their children, revision of standards governing child welfare issues to conform to Indian cultural life, and strengthening of due process to protect parents faced with losing their children.