BACK UP BLOG (no longer updating)

This blog was a backup for American Indian Adoptees blog
USE THE SEARCH BAR or SEARCH TOPICS at bottom of this blog

If you need support

Support Info: If you are a Survivor and need emotional support, a national crisis line is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week: Residential School Survivor Support Line: 1-866-925-4419. Additional Health Support Information: Emotional, cultural, and professional support services are also available to Survivors and their families through the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Health Support Program. Services can be accessed on an individual, family, or group basis.” These & regional support phone numbers are found at https://nctr.ca/contact/survivors/ . MY EMAIL: tracelara@pm.me

Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Primal Wound: Primary Maternal Preoccupation


1991.
THE PRIMAL WOUND.
Verrier Nancy, 1991, believes that during gestation a mother becomes uniquely sensitised to her baby. Donald Winnicot called this phenomenon, primary maternal preoccupation. He believed that toward the end of pregnancy, the mother develops a state of heightened sensitivity, which provides a setting for the infants constitution to begin to make itself evident, for the developmental tendencies to start to unfold and for the infant to experience spontaneous movement.
He stressed the mother alone knows what the baby could be feeling and what he needs, because everyone else is outside his experience.
The mothers hormonal, physiological, constitutional and emotional preparation provides the child with a security, which no one else can. There is a natural flow from the in-utro experience of the baby safely confined in the womb to that of the baby secure within the mothers arms, to the wanderings of the toddler who is secure in the mothers proximity to her. This security provides the child with a sense of rightness and wholeness of self.
For these babies and their mother, relinquishment and adoption are not concepts, they are experiences they can never fully recover from. A child can certainly attach to another care giver, but rather than a secure, serene feeling of oneness, the attachment is one in which the adoptive relationship may be what Bowlby has referred to as anxious attachment.
He noted that "provided there is one particular mother figure to who he can relate and who mothers him lovingly, he will in time take to and treat her as though she were almost his mother. That "almost" is the feeling expressed by the adoptive mothers who feel as if they had accepted the infant but the infant had not quite accepted them as mother.
 

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

SCOTUS Affirms Reservation — Upholds Jurisdiction to Protect Native Women

from StrongHearts Native Helpline Staff

Supreme Court of the Land

Legal experts are calling McGirt v. Oklahoma (McGirt) the most significant Federal Indian Law case of the century. On July 9, the Supreme Court’s McGirt decision upheld the treaty affirmed reservation borders of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The ruling upended previously held legal opinions that jurisdiction over major crimes transferred from federal courts to state courts. Further, that jurisdiction in fact belongs to a federal or tribal court. 
“This ruling is critical in the prosecution of domestic violence crimes against Native women,” said StrongHearts Native Helpline Director, Lori Jump (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians). “Jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction is at the heart of why rates of violence are so high for Native Americans living on trust or reservation lands.”
The reservation boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation were at stake, but the ruling has a significant impact on who has jurisdiction over major crimes as they relate to both Native and non-Native perpetrators on tribal land. And, if the Supreme Court had decided to judicially disestablish the Creek Nation’s reservation, the majority of those lands within the Nation’s historical boundaries would no longer be considered “Indian country.”

Violence Against Women Act

Further, that disestablishment of an existing reservation would not only serve to diminish tribal land but also would eliminate the same tribal jurisdiction that Congress recently, and intentionally, reaffirmed with regard to crimes of domestic violence committed by non-Natives in the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Fortunately, this was not the court ruling.

Major Crimes Act

Previous actions by the federal government, such as the Major Crimes Act of 1855, created a legal framework that resulted in jurisdictional confusion when responding to and prosecuting crimes in Indian country. Through the Major Crimes Act of 1855, the U.S. government assumed concurrent jurisdiction over “serious crimes” committed by a Native American in Indian country. Even basic assistance such as officers responding to 911 calls, was impacted as it could be possible that the law enforcement responding to a call might not be the officer who had jurisdiction over that crime.
In the McGirt case, the State of Oklahoma wrongly assumed jurisdiction when it convicted Jimcy McGirt for violent sex crimes on the reservation of the Creek Nation’s reservation. McGirt appealed his case asserting that the State of Oklahoma didn’t have authority over a tribal member on tribal land.  

Deadlock Tie Breaker

There were two criminal cases brought before the SCOTUS, but in one instance there was a conflict of interest. Prior to his role on the SCOTUS, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch had presided over Sharp v. Murphy in a federal appellate court. The case involved a tribal member who had committed murder on the Creek reservation. He also contended that a state court didn’t have jurisdiction. In Murphy’s 2018 appeal to the SCOTUS, Gorsuch ultimately had to recuse himself; and without Gorsuch, the potential for deadlock on the SCOTUS prevented its natural conclusion. Thus, the Murphy case was hinged upon the outcome of McGirt. 
In the landmark ruling, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”

SCOTUS Upends Previously Held Legal Opinions

Although many experts agree that the SCOTUS opinion was accurate and reflected the original intent of the treaties in question, non-Native legislators argued that Native people left Indian territory of their own accord and as such forfeited title to the reservation. Further, that due to the lack of Native inhabitants, the reservation ceased to exist. In reality, Native people were continuously forced out of Indian Territory by white settlers and the U.S. government. Regardless, the crux of it all as pointed out by SCOTUS was that only an act of Congress could disestablish a tribal reservation, see Solem v. Bartlett (1984).

StrongHearts Stands with Survivors

StrongHearts Native Helpline recognizes the importance of the McGirt decision for victims and survivors of violence. Tribal nations are one step closer to holding all perpetrators accountable for committing crimes against Native people on tribal lands. StrongHearts’ mission is to restore power to Native Americans impacted by domestic, dating and sexual violence by providing a system of safety, sovereignty and support with a vision to return to our traditional lifeways where our relatives are safe, violence is eradicated and sacredness is restored.

To explore your options for safety and healing, visit strongheartshelpline.org for one-on-one chat advocacy or call 1-844-7NATIVE (1-844-762-8483) daily 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. CT. 

As a collaborative effort of the National Domestic Violence Hotline (The Hotline) and the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, after hours callers can connect with The Hotline by choosing option one. 









THE PEOPLE OF ONE FIRE

Saturday, August 8, 2020

My Friend Jeff

Avon man receives long-awaited answers in search for biological family


Jeff Hancock finally received information he'd waited a long time to see: Information in his search for his biological family (WHAM photo)
Avon, N.Y. - An Avon man’s lifelong search has finally come to an end. His long-sought answer came in the mail, and 13WHAM was there to see it revealed.
The letter to Jeff Hancock held the answers for a man whose journey began as a boy, a foster child adopted when he was four.

“When I first found out I was adopted, I felt like a guest at my own funeral,” he said. “The person I had known my whole life was dead. I felt like my whole life isn’t valid to this point, because I wasn’t who I always thought I was.”

Hancock was 42 when he went to apply for a passport and realized he did not have a required birth certificate.
“I said, ‘Mom, I need my birth certificate,’” he recalled. “I actually had never seen it. And she goes, 'Oh, I don't have that anymore.'"
That was when Hancock’s search for his biological family and his original birth certificate began. He joined a group lobbying to unseal state adoption records, giving adoptees access to their birth certificate.
“We just want what everybody else has,” he said.
In 2019, adoptees won the fight for adoption rights. Immediately, Hancock applied for his birth certificate. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed it for months – but, finally, the day Hancock received his letter finally arrived.
“I was five pounds, seven ounces when I was born,” he said, looking over the papers. “I was little.”
“This is something I’ve been wanting to know for a long time: I was born at Booth Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, New York,” he said. “...I learned something today, and I also have confirmation that’s my mom.”
Now, because of the work by Jeff Hancock and others, adoptees in New York no longer have to wait a lifetime for the paper that's a birthright.
“I felt complete for the first time since discovery,” he said.

VIDEO: https://13wham.com/news/local/avon-man-receives-long-awaited-answers-about-his-own-adoption

Ed. Note: Jeff is an LDA - late  discovery adoptee, one who didn't get told he was adopted until he was an adult.

My Friend Jeff

Avon man receives long-awaited answers in search for biological family


Jeff Hancock finally received information he'd waited a long time to see: Information in his search for his biological family (WHAM photo)
Avon, N.Y. - An Avon man’s lifelong search has finally come to an end. His long-sought answer came in the mail, and 13WHAM was there to see it revealed.
The letter to Jeff Hancock held the answers for a man whose journey began as a boy, a foster child adopted when he was four.

“When I first found out I was adopted, I felt like a guest at my own funeral,” he said. “The person I had known my whole life was dead. I felt like my whole life isn’t valid to this point, because I wasn’t who I always thought I was.”

Hancock was 42 when he went to apply for a passport and realized he did not have a required birth certificate.
“I said, ‘Mom, I need my birth certificate,’” he recalled. “I actually had never seen it. And she goes, 'Oh, I don't have that anymore.'"
That was when Hancock’s search for his biological family and his original birth certificate began. He joined a group lobbying to unseal state adoption records, giving adoptees access to their birth certificate.
“We just want what everybody else has,” he said.
In 2019, adoptees won the fight for adoption rights. Immediately, Hancock applied for his birth certificate. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed it for months – but, finally, the day Hancock received his letter finally arrived.
“I was five pounds, seven ounces when I was born,” he said, looking over the papers. “I was little.”
“This is something I’ve been wanting to know for a long time: I was born at Booth Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, New York,” he said. “...I learned something today, and I also have confirmation that’s my mom.”
Now, because of the work by Jeff Hancock and others, adoptees in New York no longer have to wait a lifetime for the paper that's a birthright.
“I felt complete for the first time since discovery,” he said.

VIDEO: https://13wham.com/news/local/avon-man-receives-long-awaited-answers-about-his-own-adoption

Ed. Note: Jeff is an LDA - late  discovery adoptee, one who didn't get told he was adopted until he was an adult.

Thursday, August 6, 2020

How Native Tribes Started Winning at the Supreme Court


(excerpt) The Tribal Supreme Court Project is already working on a Firth Circuit case concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act, which Hedden-Nicely calls “the single most important issue for Indian Country today.” Brackeen v. Bernhardt asks whether ICWA, through which Congress granted tribes priority in deciding foster care placements for Native children, violates an alleged Constitutional restriction on “racial preferences.” A judge ruled in 2018 that overturning the law would violate tribal sovereignty. Hedden-Nicely thinks the case isn’t really about children but is just one of many “unrelenting attacks on the idea that Indians have any special status under the law.”
He doesn’t expect the Supreme Court, which has already twice upheld ICWA, to hear the Brackeen case. And if it did, given recent trends, it’d be unlikely to decide against tribes.“At a time where Congress is not being particularly helpful on Indian policy, and the executive is being actively antagonistic, it’s very comforting to have at least one branch of government acting in a way that’s consistent with their trust responsibility to Indian tribes,” says Hedden-Nicely. When the court sides with Congress and the president in ignoring tribal sovereignty, “bad things start to happen.”

GOOD READ: How Native Tribes Started Winning at the Supreme Court – Mother Jones

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

60s Scoop Adoptees: Where Do We Fit In?

Stewart Garnett, 41, was adopted by a San Francisco family as a kid, but has come back to Manitoba to try to retrace his heritage. (Erin Brohman/CBC)



Stewart Garnett



Stewart Garnett was born in Winnipeg and is from Long Plain First Nation, but he grew up in California after being adopted by a white family during the Sixties Scoop.
Garnett said he struggled with questions of identity growing up and was frequently confused by the way people would label him.
He returned to Manitoba about a week ago in attempt to regain a sense of his culture.
"It's been rough. I see people who do know who they are and they're comfortable in their own skin, but me, no," he said.
"You try walking in the non-aboriginal world, you don't fit in; you try and walk in the aboriginal world and you don't necessarily fit in, so you're on this fence of 'Where do we fit in?'"

SEE MORE ADOPTEES HERE 

Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger apologizes for Sixties Scoop

Manitoba Sixties Scoop apology moves indigenous families to tears

 

Maryland Laws affecting adoptees : HB1039 Overwhelmingly Passes Full House

READ HERE

HB1039 Overwhelmingly Passes Full House


The Maryland House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed HB1039 on March 11, sending the equal rights bill to the Senate for final consideration.
The vote, initially reported as 130-8, became official later at 131-7. Two delegates who are adopted spoke strongly in favor of the bill: Republican April Rose of Carroll County and Delegate Courtney Watson, Democrat of Howard County. HB1039 is sponsored by Republican Michael Malone, and it has now moved to the Senate, where its companion bill is already under consideration in the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Senator Susan Lee is the sponsor of the Senate bill.
“We are pleased that the overall response from our legislators has been positive and very supportive,” said Susie Stricker, the founder of Maryland Adoptee Rights, a member of the Capitol Coalition for Adoptee Rights. “We have cleared a huge hurdle, but need to keep the momentum moving forward by urging our lawmakers to vote for the HB1039 as it is written and keeps it equal.”
“Moving this legislation along has been a dream of mine for over 10 years,” said Peggy Klappenberger, a Maryland adoptee and advocate with Maryland Adoptee Rights. “To be sitting where we are today is surreal, and I know it couldn’t have happened without Susie Stricker and all the hard work she put in to get this bill written and into both chambers. It also wouldn’t have been possible without the support of the adoptee community both nationally and here in Maryland. Everyone has been amazing.”

Equality for All Adopted People

We are a coalition of organizations and allies in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland, working to secure equal rights for all adult adopted people who were born or adopted in the region.
Join Us  More Info

Monday, August 3, 2020

Indigenous children for sale: The MONEY behind the Sixties Scoop #HumanTrafficking

Adoptive U.S. parents paid thousands for Indigenous Manitoba children


Carla Williams was adopted by a Dutch family during the Sixties Scoop. (CBC)

Marlene Orgeron recalls the day her adoptive Louisiana parents told her they bought her for $30,000. Her brothers, they told Marlene, were "freebies."
It left her feeling worthless.

"They told me I should feel grateful they paid anything for me at all," Orgeron said. "I felt so guilty."
Marlene Orgeron was taken from her home in Shoal Lake, Man., in the 1970s and adopted by a family in the U.S. (CBC)
It's the latest revelation in a story survivors say has haunted them for decades: the money behind the Sixties Scoop.
The scoop, as it is called, refers to the era from the 1960s to the 1980s, when child welfare authorities scooped up Indigenous children and adopted them out to non-Indigenous families.
Those placed in homes outside the country weren't just adopted out of their Indigenous homes and into mostly white American families — they were bought and paid for.
"It hurts so much, but I have waited so many years for someone to finally talk about this," said Dianne Fast, whose brother Willy was seized from their Eriksdale, Man., home and adopted by a couple in Indiana.
His value? Fast said her brother went for $10,000.
"His mother used to say she owned him."
Carla Williams, also from Manitoba, was adopted by a family in Holland for $6,400.
Manitoba twins Alyson and Debra ended up in Pennsylvania. They said they were valued at $10,000 as a pair.
Wayne Snellgrove calls it human trafficking.
"[My adoptive parents] paid a lot of money for me," said Snellgrove, who started out in foster care.
"They farmed us out to an [American] adoption agency and then they sold me."

'It sickened me'

Williams said the thought of the transactions is revolting.
"It sickened me," she said.
Barbara Tremitiere was surprised to hear this. Now retired, during the 1970s she was an adoption worker with the Pennsylvania-based Tressler Lutheran Home for Children.
They worked hard to find homes for children with "special needs," she said. Canadian Indigenous children were deemed special needs.
"Because you didn't want them," Tremitiere said. "I was once told by a native person from [Manitoba], on one of the reservations ... 'We passed on to you what we didn't want.' And they were probably right."

Keep Reading 

The Promise Not Kept




Prof. Matthew L.M. Fletcher


Prof. Matthew L.M. Fletcher | The Promise Not Kept



“I
grew up surrounded by adults talking about federal recognition and the
promise of ‘Indian money,’ compensation for lost treaty rights.”



I
come from Anishinaabe communities, the Grand Traverse Band Odawa and
Pokagon and Gun Lake Bodewadmi, who signed numerous treaties from 1795
to 1855 that suffered through administrative termination from the 1860s
through the 1980s and 1990s. I grew up surrounded by adults talking
about federal recognition and the promise of “Indian money,”
compensation for lost treaty rights.



My
relatives had nothing, no reservation, no tribal government, no HUD
money for housing, no IHS, no BIA, but they still ended up getting
removed to boarding schools and foster care with white families, going
to jail, and dealing with suicide and addiction. I went to law school
and chose to work with tribes to be a part of the restoration of
Anishinaabe government and culture.




A
friend once asked me what standards apply in tribal courts when a
prosecutor moves to charge a juvenile as an adult. I was taken aback. No
Anishinaabe tribal judge I know would ever agree to that. Indian
children are special, considered by some to be supernatural creatures,
deserving respect and deference. The word in Anishinaabemowin for child
is benodjhen, which loosely translated means spirit coming forth.




As
a policy matter, the last thing a tribal judge would want to do is
sentence a child to a jail where they could be brutalized and converted
into a hardened criminal. Tribal communities already struggle with the
reintegration of our adult prisoners. It would be so much worse for our
children.



Matthew L.M. Fletcher
is professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law,
director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center, and editor of the
leading blog on Indian law, Turtle Talk. He is a member of the Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. 



The Promise Not Kept


Prof. Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Prof. Matthew L.M. Fletcher | The Promise Not Kept

“I grew up surrounded by adults talking about federal recognition and the promise of ‘Indian money,’ compensation for lost treaty rights.”
I come from Anishinaabe communities, the Grand Traverse Band Odawa and Pokagon and Gun Lake Bodewadmi, who signed numerous treaties from 1795 to 1855 that suffered through administrative termination from the 1860s through the 1980s and 1990s. I grew up surrounded by adults talking about federal recognition and the promise of “Indian money,” compensation for lost treaty rights.
My relatives had nothing, no reservation, no tribal government, no HUD money for housing, no IHS, no BIA, but they still ended up getting removed to boarding schools and foster care with white families, going to jail, and dealing with suicide and addiction. I went to law school and chose to work with tribes to be a part of the restoration of Anishinaabe government and culture.
A friend once asked me what standards apply in tribal courts when a prosecutor moves to charge a juvenile as an adult. I was taken aback. No Anishinaabe tribal judge I know would ever agree to that. Indian children are special, considered by some to be supernatural creatures, deserving respect and deference. The word in Anishinaabemowin for child is benodjhen, which loosely translated means spirit coming forth.
As a policy matter, the last thing a tribal judge would want to do is sentence a child to a jail where they could be brutalized and converted into a hardened criminal. Tribal communities already struggle with the reintegration of our adult prisoners. It would be so much worse for our children.
Matthew L.M. Fletcher is professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center, and editor of the leading blog on Indian law, Turtle Talk. He is a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. 

CLICK OLDER POSTS (above) to see more news

CLICK OLDER POSTS  (above) to see more news

MEGWETCH THANK YOU

HUGE Thank you for visiting this blog and sharing this with your kin. It's appreciated. Contact Trace anytime! Use the form below.

BOOKSHOP

Please use BOOKSHOP to buy our titles. We will not be posting links to Amazon.

Popular Posts

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

OUR HISTORY

OUR HISTORY
BOOK 5: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects