A case is being heard at present in the State of Idaho. A Native
American toddler (I missed the specific age if this was given),
born to a white mother and an Oglala (sp) Sioux father, is now in
foster care with a White family. The father previously showed no
interest in the child, and is still uninvolved. The paternal aunt
wants to gain custody. The child, though young, is at an age when
a change of custody may have lasting traumatic effects.
The paternal aunt maintains she should be given custody in
order to expose the child to his Native American culture. The
attorney for the White couple with whom the child is now placed,
argue that if exposure to Native culture is the issue this can be
done without removal of the child from the present placement.
Ordinarily, any change of custody must be for good cause, since
change of custody is considered a major intervention. However, the
1978 Indian Child Welfare Act provides that native tribes should
have priority in adoption cases, and was meant to stem the flow of
infants from Native American communities. Thus, the paternal aunt
is likely to prevail.
I find it naive that the attorney for the White couple would
maintain that the couple could acquaint the child with Native
culture just as easily as Native Americans could. Then there is
the experience of a Native American growing up among primarily
White persons, and the possible exposure to instances of racial
prejudice (at least from others outside the immediate family, if
not also from unconscious sources within the family). It is also
possible that a Native American upbringing would provide the child
with cultural defenses against those experiences of racial
prejudice which such a child would inevitably experience. Not only
is a White family not likely to know, or be able to provide, such
cultural defenses, but the child's identification with such a
family is likely to leave him particularly vulnerable to prejudice
from this societal group (that is, even beyond the vulnerability
which would result from a lack of appropriate "cultural defenses").
I think these considerations outweigh those of possible trauma
which might result from any change of custody.
Of course, this conclusion could be mistaken. No mention
was made of the routine quality of care now being provided by the
White couple; nor was there any mention of the routine care likely
to be provided by the child's Native American relatives. We
already know that his father is emotionally absent; whether an
extended family which includes male members is available is also
unknown. The concept of "cultural defenses" against racial
prejudice is, however, an important one. It was not mentioned in
the report, and is not one with which many mainstream Americans are
likely to be acquainted.
If others heard this report, and if there are errors in the
above or missing details please provide the added information. I
am particularly concerned to get a correct spelling for the name of
the tribe to which the Native father belongs.
Kipling D. Forbes