Posted on 03/22/2016 11:51:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A 6-year-old girl was removed from the California home of the foster family she has lived with for four years because she has a tiny sliver of Native American heritage — despite resistance from her foster parents and their tens of thousands of supporters.
Rusty and Summer Page of Santa Clarita, California, have long fought to gain custody of Lexi, 6, who is 1.56 percent Choctaw Native American. That figure means that Lexi's home placement is dictated by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
That law "seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families," according to its own language.
The child's birth parents struggled with substance abuse, according to court documents. Her father, who had a criminal history, never lived on a Choctaw reservation and didn't have any social, political, or cultural ties to the tribe, according to the court documents. But officials determined that Lexi is 1/64th Choctaw based on his ancestry.
Lexi was placed with the Pages — who have three other children — in December 2011 after two unsuccessful foster homes, including one where she was taken out of because of a black eye and a scrape on her face, the court documents said.
In 2011, "extended" family in Utah became aware that Lexi was with a foster family and expressed "interest in adopting" her, according to the documents. The documents said that Lexi is related to the Utah couple, who are not Native American, through her step-grandfather.
The California Court of Appeals originally ruled in August of 2014 that Lexi could stay with the Pages and they could continue to fight the Utah family for custody of the child.
But a decision earlier this month ordered the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services to place Lexi with the Utah family
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
There’s a whole other side to this story that gives it a great deal more context. It is not as simple as the headlines make it sound. From what I’ve read, the Page family always knew that the little girl could not be adopted. The girl’s father still has parental rights, and has been working to get his daughter back, but in the meantime, he wants her to live with family, where her sister already lives, and another sibling lives down the street, because he feels that the Page family has made it difficult for him to see her. But the Page family decided to fight for custody of a foster child that they had no legal right to. That’s what extended this and made it take so long - all the while, leaving the girl living with the Page family as the case worked its way through the courts. So, the Page family now can say “but she’s been living with us for 4 years!” Well, yes, because they chose to fight rather than turn her over.
Should the courts ignore the father’s rights and wishes because this family decided they wanted to adopt her? I don’t know the answer to that, but sensational headlines that say “girl removed from home because she’s 1/64 Indian” do not tell a truthful story.
This is BS.
My father is 1/8th NA. That means that he gets to live on the rez. He gets to vote. He gets to participate in the drum circle every Thursday night.
I’m 1/16th.
That means that I’m NOT considered a member of the tribe at all. I have no rights. I get no benefit. I am NOT a Native American.
So how in the HELL can they count this little girl? They wouldn’t give her any OTHER consideration for her race.
Californistan is evil.
Untold millions of Southerners would DNA test 1/64th or greater heritage of the Five Civilized Tribes.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 is an offshoot of the Nuremberg Laws. I am a member of the Pokemon Band of the Potawatomi. If people can arbitrarily change their sex or race I can be a Pokemon. In fact I am the Pope of the Pokemon.
Elizabeth Warren’s love child?
but raised by a foster family on a reservation?
Actually from what I’ve read elsewhere, the new foster family are not Native American and do not live on a reservation.
Are you yellow with a jaggy tail, and can you shoot electricity?
Any “step” relation is by definition NOT biological.
I applause your grasp of math. Its, like, hard, you know?
Hehe, let there be a tribe called Wannabees, {including Sortabees). No perks claimed, just stories.
Hehe, let there be a tribe called Wannabees, {including Sortabees). No perks claimed, just stories.
I can tell you right now that she will be reviled and kicked off of the reservation the first chance the tribe gets. One of my friends who is 50% Ute tells me a lot anecdotes about the strict tribal hierarchy based on hoe pure blooded the members are. The State case workers pulling this trick are monsters. I’ve met State Child Care Monsters. Too many of them.
I guess so.
I know that a step relation is supposed to be non-biological.
The question is that the court found that Lexi was 1/64 Choctaw through her father (1/32). But the supposed Choctaw connection was through a step grandfather. So, in the common interpretation of a step relationship, there actually is no Choctaw blood relation at all.
The court says otherwise. So what reasoning was used to turn a step relationship into a blood relationship?
As for the genetic breakout, it was meant to illustrate just how far removed in time even a direct Choctaw relative would have to be from the child to create so dilute a blood relationship. It was meant for those persons who might be unclear that to be 1/64th required a person to be 7 generations removed from the single person in their parentage who was of full Choctaw blood. Allowing 20 years per generation, that places the introduction point somewhere in the late 1800s.
That’s a pretty long reach back for establishing a claim. Just how far back would the court go? 1/128th? Even further? Is there any limit?
Ironically, under the old racial classification laws of the South, “one drop of blood” was (sometimes) enough to classify a person as Black:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Maybe the court would accept any “relationship,” however distant, to support a claim under the law. On its face, the ruling looks like the court is doing a bit more than just impartially interpreting the law.
Thanks for your reply and applause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.