Any “step” relation is by definition NOT biological.
I applause your grasp of math. Its, like, hard, you know?
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.