For popular or very good threads

Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
944
314

“ . . . The June 15 ruling turning away constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law enacted to keep Native American children within tribes, followed that same pattern.

“It was a 7-2 vote, but the court — in a ruling written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett — did not decide the key question of whether the law discriminates on the basis of race by giving preferences to Native American families during the adoption process. . . ”

————————————————

This is perhaps the most interesting of the three cases listed. Notice that there is a difference between keeping children “within tribes” and “giving preferences.” Keeping a child within a tribe sounds much more hard and fast. And if the tribe is small or the birth mother putting her child up for adoption is away from the most populated part of the tribe, maybe the pool of potential adoptive parents is too small?

giving preference might be something as simple as giving a modest number of extra points on a form

————————————

And I’m not sure why this would be the liberal decision. Maybe being race-aware is viewed as the more “liberal” viewpoint? Whereas being color-blind is being viewed as the more “conservative” viewpoint? Even though we’re not yet there as a society!
 
Adoption cases are tough because there are kids involved, and some times the parents (one or both) of the adopted kid are also involved.

This reasoning stood out to me as being an exception to race-based adoptions:
In a 7-2 vote, the court turned away a series of claims seeking to invalidate parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which was enacted in 1978 to keep Native American children within tribes. Among the challenged provisions was one that gives preference to Native Americans seeking to foster or adopt Native American children.
...

The law was defended by the Biden administration and the five tribes. The tribes warned that striking down provisions of the law on racial discrimination grounds would threaten centuries of law that treat Native American tribes as distinct entities.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...y-part-native-american-adoption-law-rcna67865

I wonder if the parent's of the adopted child wouldn't mind if a non-Native adopted the child. If that's the case, then this case can be settled between the both groups of parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur

“The couple adopted the child after a potential placement with a Navajo family fell through. They are also seeking to adopt the child’s half-sister, known in court papers as Y.R.J., who lives with them. . . ”

.

.

“ . . . ‘Our main concern is what today's decision means for the little girl, Y.R.J. — now five years old — who has been part of the Brackeen family for nearly her whole life,’ he added. . . ”

——————————

This seems like a no-brainer. Roll with what’s working.

The tribal preference seems like it’d work better at the time of first placing a child. Some extra weight, if there are several families all of whom look good as a home for the child.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
“ . . . ‘Our main concern is what today's decision means for the little girl, Y.R.J. — now five years old — who has been part of the Brackeen family for nearly her whole life,’ he added. . . ”
That's an important point to consider. Some people would say that it's damaging to give away a pet dog because they are attached to the owners, so I couldn't imagine how much more true that is for a child.

On the discrimination front, I'm thinking that it's not really discrimination any more than not allowing men in the women's restroom is discrimination. In other words, the restricted selection process doesn't cause hate or harm to those that lose out on the child and there's a positive reason for keeping the adoption choices within race/tribe, esp. if their numbers are so low that they may be on the brink of cultural extinction so-to-speak. I think the combination of those factors makes it not discrimination or unfair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Some people would say that it's damaging to give away a pet dog because they are attached to the owners, so I couldn't imagine how much more true that is for a child.

All the more reason for a judge to view the facts of a specific case as absolutely central. I guess we could “crowd-source” it and have a jury decide, but I don’t think that’s done in family court cases.

There’s an interesting example from American colonial history. A man was appointed to be a judge with no experience. He was told — listen to both sides and decide what you think is right, and you’ll almost always be right. But don’t give your reason because you’d almost always be wrong.

Meaning, the law might get to the common sense solution to a situation. But it seems to get to it by its unique reasoning. :D
 
Last edited:
All the more reason for a judge to view the facts of a specific case as absolutely central. I guess we could “crowd-source” it and have a jury decide, but I don’t think that’s done in family court cases.
I think the judge has his or her hands tied because of what the law (Indian Child Welfare Act) says. If that's the case then I'm thinking the family in the case you brought up in post #4 should've never been able to adopt and raise these children in the first place. Perhaps the family should've even consulted an attorney and looked into the laws beforehand. So I can sorta see a case for both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
If that's the case then I'm thinking the family in the case you brought up in post #4 should've never been able to adopt and raise these children in the first place. Perhaps the family should've even consulted an attorney and looked into the laws beforehand. So I can sorta see a case for both sides.
The family who first fostered two young Native children who are half-siblings.

Okay, maybe the agency has to move relatively quickly with foster placements, although you’d think they’d have done families lined up who are vetted ahead of time.

And yes, the lawyer for the family should have warned them, hey, you’re in for a long, hard path. And maybe he or she did.