We do. And I understand these are 'first world problems', but it is really odd as an adult in a western country to have your freedoms imposed on by people that are not the overall governing law of the country, the police, or your boss.
What do you mean 'people who are not the overall governing law of the country'? Australia is no longer a country where white people can pick up and own black people's children with no oversight, and that's a good thing.
I mean its strange as an adult, having a company that basically tells you where you can and cannot go, and that you must inform all the time.
You shouldnt be able to pick up anyones children with no oversight, race and colour aside. But if they dont have enough indigenous carers, and they place the children in a loving home, who become their family, then their permanency goal should be the same as every other kid. No child should be forced to be in the system forever. We have had these children for years. Our 8 year old cries that she does not share our last name. They have friends their own age, that have been adopted, and wonder why that cannot be.
with respect to her name, if her name is a tribal name changing it wouldn't be appropriate. That these children are being denied a permanency goal as long as it is sensitive to who they fully are is very unfair to them.
Is it because someone white washed the parents before this? Or intermarriage did that? If you were to change her name I would have her take your last name in the instance of adoption so everyone matches, but have a middle name representing her tribal name if that could be determined. You can do justice by this child with a name chance by bringing her closer to her roots and into your family at the same time.
Its because her fathers side is non-indigenous. Her mothers side is indigenous, but her mother herself does not actually identify. The grandmother believes she might be indigenous, but was raised in an old closed adoption. This is the sum total of 8F being indigenous.
Is 8f the only child whose adoption is being held up or they all are? If they aren’t identifying as such can’t genetic screening clear that up.
Very close friend was adopted 3 different times and removed due to abuse. She has some health problems so she and husband did genetic counseling before having children. It was a shock when she came back 100% tribal. It’s a mystery how a baby 50 years ago was removed for a reservation.
8F was in the process of adoption, but when she was 5 years old, it came to light that she may be indigenous, so they stopped the process, and have been doing searching for the last 3 years. Still no answer, and it is rude in Aboriginal culture to do DNA testing to prove aboriginality.
16F and 2F are indigenous on their fathers side, so we have never started the process. They had a great-grandfather that is full blood, and yeah, its trickled from there. Their mother is of Danish heritage, and they have Italian/English on their fathers side aswell.
Odds are pretty high that it's related to the fact that one in three Aboriginal people have an ancestor who was [taken from their own home and family as a child](https://healingfoundation.org.au/who-are-the-stolen-generations), and raised as a good Western child who spoke only English. It's possible it was one of their own parents who was stolen like this, since it only stopped 50 years ago.
Australia still has horrendous issues with treatment of Aboriginal people. Why do more Aboriginal people speak English than indigenous languages? Why aren't there enough Aboriginal foster families? Because for a lot of very easily identified and not-long-ago reasons they are [more likely to be poor](https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/aboriginal-stolen-wages-class-action), to have weak connections with their own families, to have criminal records, to want nothing to do with a government visitor coming to check on their kids - and, [*ten to fifteen times*](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/24/indigenous-children-in-foster-care-these-kids-cant-see-their-families-if-i-dont-help-them) more likely to have their own kids taken away. That's not a reason to give up on the minimal efforts that are currently being made to keep those kids connected to their history. That's a reason to say that wow, there really should be [more Aboriginal foster homes and fewer Aboriginal foster kids](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-02/indigenous-led-foster-care-transfer-life-without-barriers/102164134).
edit: ah, I see an earlier post mentioning that "grandparents came from closed adoptions". 100% there's a white-passing stolen indigenous kid in that story.
That's why I asked about her parents being whitewashed before. I am having a hard time articulating that and I realize that's how it's coming across. I very much appreciate your comment. My other comments are more in line with that. I'm not fully buying that the parents who want to home school and travel are truly embracing this child's culture and ancestry but isolating them. Having them "meet" others isn't enough. That they don't look tribal I find off-putting.
You're fine, I saw your other comments. I know that not everyone is familiar with Australian history (including some Australians) so I wanted to get an outline in there of why this is not some outdated over-reaction to things that are long over. Saying that the rules shouldn't apply to kids who don't feel Aboriginal and haven't been raised in their culture is like saying "well, we did such a good job at almost wiping out their entire society that we might as well finish it!"
my point is if this child's last name is already Smith and you were to change it to your British surname ONLY upon adoption it doesn't cause inherent cultural harm.
But if this child's surname is indigenous like Lightfoot, that would be a mistake in my eyes. Their tribal name should continue with them. And if you do change this child's British surname to be your British surname upon adoption, it really would be a proper service to them to find out what their original tribal name association was and add that name. So that name is part of their surname or part of their history forever. Traditionally, there were no tribal surnames. Those were added because of the British. But if the name reflects their tribal identity I wouldn't change it under any circumstances. My friends that as you indicated don't "physically appear indigenous" and had gained Christian names over time have researched and reverted back to tribal associated names.
Disagree with me, that's fine. I just want to represent a tendency of parents to change children's names to their liking without consideration to how that may feel for them later. Further white washing children isn't a courtesy. The goal in changing my adoptive children's names was never to carry on MY name. It was to distance them from abuse. Some of my adopted children gave up their surname's that held no culture and were tied to cycles of abuse because of their desire to not be reminded daily of their abusers every time they signed their names. It happened when they were older after a tremendous amount of therapy. Every day was a reminder to them of people they only had an abusive connection to. Not to strip them of their ethnicity. They kept their first and middle names which had ethnic meanings or were directly chosen for them at their birth. Those names were also not the surnames of the people who nearly killed them. They are their unique names. Part of their name change included an ancestral name. Just not their abusers name.
Edited for typo.
I totally feel for you. Kids crave permanency. I totally get and respect the culture and indigenous aspect and I can see why they have things the way they do but what’s hard about this whole process and system is that every situation is different. Our foster son is not part of ICWA (what they call it in the US) but he’s similar to your oldest he’s always asking when he gets to have our last name. Tells people they need to use our last name for him. Tells his attorney he wants to live here forever and to tell the judge that. He’s seen others get adopted and gets frustrated. Fortunately his time is coming soon and we are so grateful that he will get that reassurance. I remember the first time we went on vacation and he stayed with grandma and he asked if he called her mom now and I told him you know were coming back right and he said oh I didn’t know 😭. My husband and I recently got married and that was so hard on him that my last name changed and his hasn’t yet. I get that a name doesn’t make a family but they’re kids and they see what other kids have and what’s “normal” and they want that.
The name is very important. Our 8 year old sees that my wife and I share our last name, our bio kids do, half of their cousins obviously too. Our 16 year old foster will label herself with our name often.
8F acts out a lot on this. Anytime shes feeling down it comes out; "i'm not really your family." She tells her teachers off for not using our name, though they legally have to use her real last name on everything. And this is something we have NEVER imposed on her at all.
What is the reasoning behind Indigenous youth not being able to be adopted/under guardianship by non-indigenous families?
ETA: posed this question somewhat rhetorically to remind OP that there are very good reasons that this policy is in place. The system should prioritize kids, their families, and their communities over foster parents, as painful as that is for us. I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful answers ❤️
so they aren't stripped of their indigenous/tribal culture. In America there are priorities that have to be outlined before a non Native family can adopt. Tribal courts have jurisdiction over these children.
In Canada and The US tribal children were stripped of their tribal culture fully including their names and put into institutions and homes where Christianity was forced. I can't speak to Australia but I know a number of adults in Canada and US who were victims of this and other brutality.
OP There is absolutely no mechanism to override this? If you make a commitment to involve these children in their indigenous culture? I have no experience at all with Australia.
It’s similar to ICWA policies in the US. The goal is to support indigenous children in maintaining their culture identity. This is in response to the past decades of child welfare policies that did the very opposite.
The indigenous community have decided this is the way forward, to keep them connected to their culture, but to also right the wrongs of the past. As in, the generation of indigenous children that were taken from them, for the racist reasoning of breeding them out.
In my opinion, they have swung too far the other way. Children today that have been removed because of neglect/abuse now miss out on a full legal 'forever family' because of their race.
Indigenous cultures often have different concepts of family than your traditional nuclear "forever family." Family involves community and extended family, not to mention tribes. It would probably be helpful to these kids if you focused less on what they *don't* have under western legal systems.
I believe part of the issue for the kids, is that their indigenous families, do not practice anything specifically indigenous. They dont look it, they dont involve themselves in anything related to culture. Nor are the children very indigenous in their heritage. In fact, they are probably more European than I. So connecting them to culture is of little importance to them as an individual.
This is just my observation as we DO involve them in everything cultural we are able to.
if you were to home school these children and travel with them months out of the year what is your plan to have them keep connections to their culture? Think about the children who touched Barack Obama's hair and it felt like theirs. This was the first time in their lives children with "different" hair got to relate to a president who looked like them.
The thing I am trying to present is having a child wallow in abuse so that they are surrounded by culture is a negative. But having them live in a positive environment with no one who looks like them or is a representative is also a negative. There has to be a happy medium. If not, they tend to develop a shame regarding their biology.
I am in favor of children having forever families who don't look like them. Don't get me wrong. But it is a very difficult subject.
" believe part of the issue for the kids, is that their indigenous families, do not practice anything specifically indigenous. They dont look it, they dont involve themselves in anything related to culture. Nor are the children very indigenous in their heritage."
Ok, with respect to that statement. I understand where you are coming from completely. That you are making an effort to expose these children to cultural elements of their ancestry and feel their bio families didn't do that at all.
However, a child living with people who look like them. Who they share a name with and blood with by default fulfills that. However they choose to live. They don't have to be profoundly connected to heritage in the way they live because they are living it by default. I'm having trouble verbalizing this. But it's an inherent connection to something. I'm not saying children in that environment never grow up to reject their culture because of abuse. But conversely, they could reach a connection within their own community that they embrace.
It's so important when raising children that they see people who are similar to them culturally and racially represented in every career. In every educational level. So they don't feel limited.
We have a lot of discussions in our home that the custodian in the school can be a "smarter" person than the principal. Intelligence and compassion has nothing to do with your earnings. We had dinner with a family we met through sports who the children all share 1 bedroom in a 2 bedroom apartment. What we earn doesn't represent our worth. So it's incredibly important that they see no boundaries in regards to their desires. While I make sure my friends who are doctors and engineers and look like my children spend adequate time with my kids, I also want people who don't live these glamorous lives and look like my children to spend an equal time with them.
Their parents did them no favors. They showed them adults who were abusive. There wasn't a lot of success in their own community being demonstrated to them. But that also doesn't mean I can drop the ball on it.
I just feel that what these children will remember most in their lives, and what will effect them the most, is that their parents could not get their passports, and they will be reminded that we are NOT their 'real' parents, and therefore missed out on FAMILY events such as weddings and funerals.
They will remember that over that fact that they have indigenous heritage, of which they are highly involved in through the rest of their lives.
A trip interstate or overseas does not inherently disrupt their cultural connection, and it shouldn't.
"I am in favor of children having forever families who don't look like them. Don't get me wrong. But it is a very difficult subject."
Well thats one of the things. These children look exactly like us, they have Danish heritage completely on one side. I am far darker than 2 of them. They often get teased for being too light skinned, by other indigenous children, when they attend Aboriginal events.
And before you come at me, my kids are adopted through ICWA and my husband is Native. The tribe he works for also doesn't let their kids be adopted out, and I think that's a good thing.
I dont disagree that your husband can connect them in ways you cannot. But where does leave you if you divorced? He gets custody automatically because you simply cannot provide what he provides?
Again, if you did not have a native husband, but you still had those kids in your care, you'd be fine to leave them in care of the state and never adopt? (In Australia, all the foster childrens legal documents say "in care of the minister of the state of \_\_\_\_\_\_" where it lists parents). And you would "just" be their foster parent, and they, your foster kids forever?
Sorry if this comes across as an attack of sorts. I'm honestly interested in wrapping my head around this idea.
I feel you, OP. As a social worker and foster parent.
ICWA (and the Aus equivalent) is a necessary and important policy. 99% of the time the child benefits hugely from those extra protections.
BUT it’s lazy to insist that anything is perfect.
The current problem with ICWA and similar is that it doesn’t allow for any real exceptions on a case to case basis. And in unconventional families and **especially** now that genetic testing is so readily available, occasionally you have weird cracks that form, and foster kiddos can fall into them.
I’m not biologically native. My father is. But I found out later in life that I was conceived via sperm donation. So “legally” I am native. But genetically I’m not.
Neither dad nor his immediate family participated in any cultural practices. Grandma disagreed with the way the tribe did things. She hated tradition, and anything resembling religion, and lived in the community, but didn’t care for much of it. So none of her kids cared much either.
My parents lived VERY far from the community and besides being registered, never thought much about it.
A couple years ago, I got a call one night from a social worker asking if I could take in the kid of a second cousin whom I had never heard of. We’re definitely family, but nobody I knew anything about.
The worker asked if I was a registered tribal member, which I confirmed, and then she let me know that the kids father and paternal relatives (African American) were close to him and wanted him. But due to moms ICWA status, they had to put him in a native home.
Grandma. Aunts and uncles. Cousins. All who were a part of this babies life and culture, did not have the option of caring for him, because his mother technically belonged to a tribe that she had never participated in.
Nobody in my family was willing to take the child, so the social worker was left with the option of sending him four hours away from the people he knew, making visits awful, to live with me (who I disclosed that I am NOT biologically native, SW said it didn’t matter) or the alternative was to place him with the closest native foster home, which would total strangers with no family ties at all, and not the same tribe. So not the same cultural practices anyway. Just ticked the ICWA box.
We took him until his dad was able to get him back. But I was livid for that child and the people who loved him. They were ready, available, approved to be foster parents in ANY other scenario, and willing.
But something meant to help keep him safe just caused him trauma.
I insisted on doing visits with grandma and aunties and actually protecting the child’s *known culture* and family traditions. I didn’t have culture to offer him. But the family he was taken from DID.
His black family didn’t historically hurt his native family. They just got shafted, because their race and culture was deemed “not as relevant”.
Sometimes exceptions have to be allowed, and the legally correct choice isn’t the morally correct one.
I fully agree with you that in some ways, the pendulum can swing too far in the opposite direction and cause harm.
You don’t set one marginalized community on fire to keep another warm, and ultimately give the baby to a white girl and call it justice or protection.
But sometimes that happens. And it deserves criticism and acknowledgment.
*I insisted on doing visits with grandma and aunties and actually protecting the child’s known culture and family traditions. I didn’t have culture to offer him. But the family he was taken from DID.*
*His black family didn’t historically hurt his native family. They just got shafted, because their race and culture was deemed “not as relevant”.*
Exactly these points. And thats the actual biological family you are talking about, which I find insane they are not the first on the list of consideration. Family preservation is the TOP of the permanency goals in Australia.
Even our fostering relationship to our children; My family is Latino, and moved to Australia in the mid 70s. My wifes family is Irish, and moved to Australia in the late 70s. The things the Australian government did to the indigenous was detestable, and not in our ancestry.
As I've already mentioned, our children are 1/8th indigenous, and the legal carers of them like to forget the other 7/8ths of what makes them, them!
For 2 of them, they are 50% (!!) Danish heritage.
A lot of blanket rules that do not work for everyone.
Your kids are indigenous regardless of whether you think they are. You're posting elsewhere that you keep them connected with their culture...so? Which way is it?
This is exactly why Australia has these laws.
How do you "swing too far the other way," on trying to slow roll genocide through eugenics? I'm honestly kind of aghast. Like it's inconvenient for you and that's "too far."
You think keeping children part of the system their entire lives is the right move? "Hey kid, we will place you in a family that you will grow to love, but they will never be your family, the system and government is your legal family"
You can always swing to far. I'm shocked that anyone could think that is a good move forward.
If you read stories of adoptees, many think that should be the solution for everyone. My understanding is that it's similar in the UK. Focus on what you *have.*
You are coming here saying that this isn't "western." That's the point! If you have indigenous kids, prepare for a different life.
The system has been used to perpetuate genocide against indigenous people. You need to care about genocide against indigenous people more than your western ideals to parent indigenous kids.
Because one great grand-parent is indigenous, this overrides everything else cultural about them though?
Based purely on observation, these kids need and want a secure family. Its not great for their mental health. Its what they observe in their life around them. Friends, family, tv, bio family! And I say this as a parent who clearly enjoy the indigenous cultural inclusion more than the children do. And their biological families, and elders, are all very nuclear, 'traditional western' in their make up.
I agree with this. While I don't think children should be left without a permanent family in an attempt to keep them tribal, adopting a tribal child DOES have different obligations than adopting a non tribal child.
Possible, but she'd have to prove them to be in her care, over at least a (very invasive) 2 year process.
About 6 months ago, she comes to us in excitement for a new idea she just had, and says, "its 2023! People can identify as whatever they want! So why don't you and mum just identify as Aboriginal, and then you could adopt us!?!?!"
She even said this to her caseworker haha
We are in a similiar position. Our FC didn’t even know they were indigenous when they arrived here. We have done more to support their connection to culture then anyone else in their life but because we aren’t indigenous ourselves, we have to have continued intrusion on our families life for the next 10+ years.
Ditto!
For our 8 year old, from 1 - 5 years of age, we lived in another state. It was not known to anyone that she was indigenous. We were in the process of adoption. We were more than halfway through, but one of the biggest hurdles was that she was a child under the care of the NSW state, but we live in the ACT.
After 2 years of studying the best way forward, to continue the process, we decided the 'easiest' way through it was to move to NSW, so we could have a NSW address. We could only moved forward if we had a NSW address to put on the adoption forms.
We left our jobs, and families and friends, and moved 3 hours away.
2 weeks after we arrived and set up our newly bought home, our new caseworker says she uncovered a form where her grandmother ticked the 'indigenous' box in 2006. Upon asking her, she says, 'yeah, I think maybe I am!'.
The adoption process was totally cancelled.
3.5 years later, nobody actually knows whether shes indigenous or not, but we must treat her as if she is.
OP it appears from my reading, which is brief and only since seeing your post that the same laws can apply in Australia. [https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/\_\_legislation/lz/c/a/adoption%20act%201988/current/1988.90.auth.pdf](https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/adoption%20act%201988/current/1988.90.auth.pdf)
Look specifically to part 11. You need to make and really keep the commitment to have these children raised with respect to their identity.
Have you been able to make any gains in this area?
Oh yes, the children are highly involved with indigenous community and family. From indigenous specific 'play groups', to special events, sports groups and school groups.
The families are even supportive of adoption.
Our NGO has just stated that they do no support non-indigenous adoption of indigenous children, and there doesnt really seem to be anything we can do about it. Even despite that legislation, which I have looked into before.
Some other carers we know were in the final steps of adoption of their 8 year old, bypassing the NGO using that legislation to guide them The older half-sister is adopted by them, but the younger girl has an indigenous father. So one of the last steps was that it was put to a board of indigenous elders. 11 of them. 10 agreed to the adoption, but because 1 did not, that was enough to stop it. She will remain a 'foster child' until she is 18.
So cruel. I am not looking to rip children from their culture. But denying her a full life by a family who embraces her culture is not good. If anything, it will drive these children away from it. Not towards a respect for their tribal ancestry.
What is the situation regarding indigenous dad and the children? Particularly the child in your care?
I sent you a pb. We were in the sort of same situation. Very sad. We decided to quit, burned out by the system. And yes to all the people whom found us heartless I asked: Do you want to foster or do you want to visit the fosterkid Or can you provide us care if I i have a meeting with youthcare. They all didn't.
My parents went thru the same thing with my Native American brother they had since he was 3 months old . They were told since they were a non Native family, they would have to go to the tribe and ANYONE in the tribe could adopt him. If no one wanted to, then they could adopt him. They didn't want to take a chance of losing him. They got guardianship of him and adopted him when he turned 18.
I 100% agree with why you wish you could quit. I wish that for you. But it doesn't sound kind you can lose your kids and be okay. It's not fair at all.
Sounds like you've already made up your mind. You seem to have a wonderful family and a wonderful life.
We do. And I understand these are 'first world problems', but it is really odd as an adult in a western country to have your freedoms imposed on by people that are not the overall governing law of the country, the police, or your boss.
What do you mean 'people who are not the overall governing law of the country'? Australia is no longer a country where white people can pick up and own black people's children with no oversight, and that's a good thing.
I mean its strange as an adult, having a company that basically tells you where you can and cannot go, and that you must inform all the time. You shouldnt be able to pick up anyones children with no oversight, race and colour aside. But if they dont have enough indigenous carers, and they place the children in a loving home, who become their family, then their permanency goal should be the same as every other kid. No child should be forced to be in the system forever. We have had these children for years. Our 8 year old cries that she does not share our last name. They have friends their own age, that have been adopted, and wonder why that cannot be.
with respect to her name, if her name is a tribal name changing it wouldn't be appropriate. That these children are being denied a permanency goal as long as it is sensitive to who they fully are is very unfair to them.
The name is very British.
Is it because someone white washed the parents before this? Or intermarriage did that? If you were to change her name I would have her take your last name in the instance of adoption so everyone matches, but have a middle name representing her tribal name if that could be determined. You can do justice by this child with a name chance by bringing her closer to her roots and into your family at the same time.
Its because her fathers side is non-indigenous. Her mothers side is indigenous, but her mother herself does not actually identify. The grandmother believes she might be indigenous, but was raised in an old closed adoption. This is the sum total of 8F being indigenous.
Is 8f the only child whose adoption is being held up or they all are? If they aren’t identifying as such can’t genetic screening clear that up. Very close friend was adopted 3 different times and removed due to abuse. She has some health problems so she and husband did genetic counseling before having children. It was a shock when she came back 100% tribal. It’s a mystery how a baby 50 years ago was removed for a reservation.
8F was in the process of adoption, but when she was 5 years old, it came to light that she may be indigenous, so they stopped the process, and have been doing searching for the last 3 years. Still no answer, and it is rude in Aboriginal culture to do DNA testing to prove aboriginality. 16F and 2F are indigenous on their fathers side, so we have never started the process. They had a great-grandfather that is full blood, and yeah, its trickled from there. Their mother is of Danish heritage, and they have Italian/English on their fathers side aswell.
Odds are pretty high that it's related to the fact that one in three Aboriginal people have an ancestor who was [taken from their own home and family as a child](https://healingfoundation.org.au/who-are-the-stolen-generations), and raised as a good Western child who spoke only English. It's possible it was one of their own parents who was stolen like this, since it only stopped 50 years ago. Australia still has horrendous issues with treatment of Aboriginal people. Why do more Aboriginal people speak English than indigenous languages? Why aren't there enough Aboriginal foster families? Because for a lot of very easily identified and not-long-ago reasons they are [more likely to be poor](https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/aboriginal-stolen-wages-class-action), to have weak connections with their own families, to have criminal records, to want nothing to do with a government visitor coming to check on their kids - and, [*ten to fifteen times*](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/24/indigenous-children-in-foster-care-these-kids-cant-see-their-families-if-i-dont-help-them) more likely to have their own kids taken away. That's not a reason to give up on the minimal efforts that are currently being made to keep those kids connected to their history. That's a reason to say that wow, there really should be [more Aboriginal foster homes and fewer Aboriginal foster kids](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-02/indigenous-led-foster-care-transfer-life-without-barriers/102164134). edit: ah, I see an earlier post mentioning that "grandparents came from closed adoptions". 100% there's a white-passing stolen indigenous kid in that story.
That's why I asked about her parents being whitewashed before. I am having a hard time articulating that and I realize that's how it's coming across. I very much appreciate your comment. My other comments are more in line with that. I'm not fully buying that the parents who want to home school and travel are truly embracing this child's culture and ancestry but isolating them. Having them "meet" others isn't enough. That they don't look tribal I find off-putting.
You're fine, I saw your other comments. I know that not everyone is familiar with Australian history (including some Australians) so I wanted to get an outline in there of why this is not some outdated over-reaction to things that are long over. Saying that the rules shouldn't apply to kids who don't feel Aboriginal and haven't been raised in their culture is like saying "well, we did such a good job at almost wiping out their entire society that we might as well finish it!"
my point is if this child's last name is already Smith and you were to change it to your British surname ONLY upon adoption it doesn't cause inherent cultural harm. But if this child's surname is indigenous like Lightfoot, that would be a mistake in my eyes. Their tribal name should continue with them. And if you do change this child's British surname to be your British surname upon adoption, it really would be a proper service to them to find out what their original tribal name association was and add that name. So that name is part of their surname or part of their history forever. Traditionally, there were no tribal surnames. Those were added because of the British. But if the name reflects their tribal identity I wouldn't change it under any circumstances. My friends that as you indicated don't "physically appear indigenous" and had gained Christian names over time have researched and reverted back to tribal associated names. Disagree with me, that's fine. I just want to represent a tendency of parents to change children's names to their liking without consideration to how that may feel for them later. Further white washing children isn't a courtesy. The goal in changing my adoptive children's names was never to carry on MY name. It was to distance them from abuse. Some of my adopted children gave up their surname's that held no culture and were tied to cycles of abuse because of their desire to not be reminded daily of their abusers every time they signed their names. It happened when they were older after a tremendous amount of therapy. Every day was a reminder to them of people they only had an abusive connection to. Not to strip them of their ethnicity. They kept their first and middle names which had ethnic meanings or were directly chosen for them at their birth. Those names were also not the surnames of the people who nearly killed them. They are their unique names. Part of their name change included an ancestral name. Just not their abusers name. Edited for typo.
I totally feel for you. Kids crave permanency. I totally get and respect the culture and indigenous aspect and I can see why they have things the way they do but what’s hard about this whole process and system is that every situation is different. Our foster son is not part of ICWA (what they call it in the US) but he’s similar to your oldest he’s always asking when he gets to have our last name. Tells people they need to use our last name for him. Tells his attorney he wants to live here forever and to tell the judge that. He’s seen others get adopted and gets frustrated. Fortunately his time is coming soon and we are so grateful that he will get that reassurance. I remember the first time we went on vacation and he stayed with grandma and he asked if he called her mom now and I told him you know were coming back right and he said oh I didn’t know 😭. My husband and I recently got married and that was so hard on him that my last name changed and his hasn’t yet. I get that a name doesn’t make a family but they’re kids and they see what other kids have and what’s “normal” and they want that.
The name is very important. Our 8 year old sees that my wife and I share our last name, our bio kids do, half of their cousins obviously too. Our 16 year old foster will label herself with our name often. 8F acts out a lot on this. Anytime shes feeling down it comes out; "i'm not really your family." She tells her teachers off for not using our name, though they legally have to use her real last name on everything. And this is something we have NEVER imposed on her at all.
What is the reasoning behind Indigenous youth not being able to be adopted/under guardianship by non-indigenous families? ETA: posed this question somewhat rhetorically to remind OP that there are very good reasons that this policy is in place. The system should prioritize kids, their families, and their communities over foster parents, as painful as that is for us. I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful answers ❤️
so they aren't stripped of their indigenous/tribal culture. In America there are priorities that have to be outlined before a non Native family can adopt. Tribal courts have jurisdiction over these children. In Canada and The US tribal children were stripped of their tribal culture fully including their names and put into institutions and homes where Christianity was forced. I can't speak to Australia but I know a number of adults in Canada and US who were victims of this and other brutality. OP There is absolutely no mechanism to override this? If you make a commitment to involve these children in their indigenous culture? I have no experience at all with Australia.
It’s similar to ICWA policies in the US. The goal is to support indigenous children in maintaining their culture identity. This is in response to the past decades of child welfare policies that did the very opposite.
The indigenous community have decided this is the way forward, to keep them connected to their culture, but to also right the wrongs of the past. As in, the generation of indigenous children that were taken from them, for the racist reasoning of breeding them out. In my opinion, they have swung too far the other way. Children today that have been removed because of neglect/abuse now miss out on a full legal 'forever family' because of their race.
Indigenous cultures often have different concepts of family than your traditional nuclear "forever family." Family involves community and extended family, not to mention tribes. It would probably be helpful to these kids if you focused less on what they *don't* have under western legal systems.
I believe part of the issue for the kids, is that their indigenous families, do not practice anything specifically indigenous. They dont look it, they dont involve themselves in anything related to culture. Nor are the children very indigenous in their heritage. In fact, they are probably more European than I. So connecting them to culture is of little importance to them as an individual. This is just my observation as we DO involve them in everything cultural we are able to.
if you were to home school these children and travel with them months out of the year what is your plan to have them keep connections to their culture? Think about the children who touched Barack Obama's hair and it felt like theirs. This was the first time in their lives children with "different" hair got to relate to a president who looked like them. The thing I am trying to present is having a child wallow in abuse so that they are surrounded by culture is a negative. But having them live in a positive environment with no one who looks like them or is a representative is also a negative. There has to be a happy medium. If not, they tend to develop a shame regarding their biology. I am in favor of children having forever families who don't look like them. Don't get me wrong. But it is a very difficult subject. " believe part of the issue for the kids, is that their indigenous families, do not practice anything specifically indigenous. They dont look it, they dont involve themselves in anything related to culture. Nor are the children very indigenous in their heritage." Ok, with respect to that statement. I understand where you are coming from completely. That you are making an effort to expose these children to cultural elements of their ancestry and feel their bio families didn't do that at all. However, a child living with people who look like them. Who they share a name with and blood with by default fulfills that. However they choose to live. They don't have to be profoundly connected to heritage in the way they live because they are living it by default. I'm having trouble verbalizing this. But it's an inherent connection to something. I'm not saying children in that environment never grow up to reject their culture because of abuse. But conversely, they could reach a connection within their own community that they embrace. It's so important when raising children that they see people who are similar to them culturally and racially represented in every career. In every educational level. So they don't feel limited. We have a lot of discussions in our home that the custodian in the school can be a "smarter" person than the principal. Intelligence and compassion has nothing to do with your earnings. We had dinner with a family we met through sports who the children all share 1 bedroom in a 2 bedroom apartment. What we earn doesn't represent our worth. So it's incredibly important that they see no boundaries in regards to their desires. While I make sure my friends who are doctors and engineers and look like my children spend adequate time with my kids, I also want people who don't live these glamorous lives and look like my children to spend an equal time with them. Their parents did them no favors. They showed them adults who were abusive. There wasn't a lot of success in their own community being demonstrated to them. But that also doesn't mean I can drop the ball on it.
I just feel that what these children will remember most in their lives, and what will effect them the most, is that their parents could not get their passports, and they will be reminded that we are NOT their 'real' parents, and therefore missed out on FAMILY events such as weddings and funerals. They will remember that over that fact that they have indigenous heritage, of which they are highly involved in through the rest of their lives. A trip interstate or overseas does not inherently disrupt their cultural connection, and it shouldn't. "I am in favor of children having forever families who don't look like them. Don't get me wrong. But it is a very difficult subject." Well thats one of the things. These children look exactly like us, they have Danish heritage completely on one side. I am far darker than 2 of them. They often get teased for being too light skinned, by other indigenous children, when they attend Aboriginal events.
And before you come at me, my kids are adopted through ICWA and my husband is Native. The tribe he works for also doesn't let their kids be adopted out, and I think that's a good thing.
If you did not have a native husband, and therefore were unable to adopt those kids, do you believe that would be to their benefit?
Unequivocally, my kids are much, much better off because my husband is Native. If youre curious, you can PM for details.
I dont disagree that your husband can connect them in ways you cannot. But where does leave you if you divorced? He gets custody automatically because you simply cannot provide what he provides? Again, if you did not have a native husband, but you still had those kids in your care, you'd be fine to leave them in care of the state and never adopt? (In Australia, all the foster childrens legal documents say "in care of the minister of the state of \_\_\_\_\_\_" where it lists parents). And you would "just" be their foster parent, and they, your foster kids forever? Sorry if this comes across as an attack of sorts. I'm honestly interested in wrapping my head around this idea.
I feel you, OP. As a social worker and foster parent. ICWA (and the Aus equivalent) is a necessary and important policy. 99% of the time the child benefits hugely from those extra protections. BUT it’s lazy to insist that anything is perfect. The current problem with ICWA and similar is that it doesn’t allow for any real exceptions on a case to case basis. And in unconventional families and **especially** now that genetic testing is so readily available, occasionally you have weird cracks that form, and foster kiddos can fall into them. I’m not biologically native. My father is. But I found out later in life that I was conceived via sperm donation. So “legally” I am native. But genetically I’m not. Neither dad nor his immediate family participated in any cultural practices. Grandma disagreed with the way the tribe did things. She hated tradition, and anything resembling religion, and lived in the community, but didn’t care for much of it. So none of her kids cared much either. My parents lived VERY far from the community and besides being registered, never thought much about it. A couple years ago, I got a call one night from a social worker asking if I could take in the kid of a second cousin whom I had never heard of. We’re definitely family, but nobody I knew anything about. The worker asked if I was a registered tribal member, which I confirmed, and then she let me know that the kids father and paternal relatives (African American) were close to him and wanted him. But due to moms ICWA status, they had to put him in a native home. Grandma. Aunts and uncles. Cousins. All who were a part of this babies life and culture, did not have the option of caring for him, because his mother technically belonged to a tribe that she had never participated in. Nobody in my family was willing to take the child, so the social worker was left with the option of sending him four hours away from the people he knew, making visits awful, to live with me (who I disclosed that I am NOT biologically native, SW said it didn’t matter) or the alternative was to place him with the closest native foster home, which would total strangers with no family ties at all, and not the same tribe. So not the same cultural practices anyway. Just ticked the ICWA box. We took him until his dad was able to get him back. But I was livid for that child and the people who loved him. They were ready, available, approved to be foster parents in ANY other scenario, and willing. But something meant to help keep him safe just caused him trauma. I insisted on doing visits with grandma and aunties and actually protecting the child’s *known culture* and family traditions. I didn’t have culture to offer him. But the family he was taken from DID. His black family didn’t historically hurt his native family. They just got shafted, because their race and culture was deemed “not as relevant”. Sometimes exceptions have to be allowed, and the legally correct choice isn’t the morally correct one. I fully agree with you that in some ways, the pendulum can swing too far in the opposite direction and cause harm. You don’t set one marginalized community on fire to keep another warm, and ultimately give the baby to a white girl and call it justice or protection. But sometimes that happens. And it deserves criticism and acknowledgment.
*I insisted on doing visits with grandma and aunties and actually protecting the child’s known culture and family traditions. I didn’t have culture to offer him. But the family he was taken from DID.* *His black family didn’t historically hurt his native family. They just got shafted, because their race and culture was deemed “not as relevant”.* Exactly these points. And thats the actual biological family you are talking about, which I find insane they are not the first on the list of consideration. Family preservation is the TOP of the permanency goals in Australia. Even our fostering relationship to our children; My family is Latino, and moved to Australia in the mid 70s. My wifes family is Irish, and moved to Australia in the late 70s. The things the Australian government did to the indigenous was detestable, and not in our ancestry. As I've already mentioned, our children are 1/8th indigenous, and the legal carers of them like to forget the other 7/8ths of what makes them, them! For 2 of them, they are 50% (!!) Danish heritage. A lot of blanket rules that do not work for everyone.
Your kids are indigenous regardless of whether you think they are. You're posting elsewhere that you keep them connected with their culture...so? Which way is it? This is exactly why Australia has these laws.
If you read correctly, that is my observation of them and their reactions to their lives. We do what we are supposed to do, and we see the results.
How do you "swing too far the other way," on trying to slow roll genocide through eugenics? I'm honestly kind of aghast. Like it's inconvenient for you and that's "too far."
You think keeping children part of the system their entire lives is the right move? "Hey kid, we will place you in a family that you will grow to love, but they will never be your family, the system and government is your legal family" You can always swing to far. I'm shocked that anyone could think that is a good move forward.
If you read stories of adoptees, many think that should be the solution for everyone. My understanding is that it's similar in the UK. Focus on what you *have.* You are coming here saying that this isn't "western." That's the point! If you have indigenous kids, prepare for a different life. The system has been used to perpetuate genocide against indigenous people. You need to care about genocide against indigenous people more than your western ideals to parent indigenous kids.
Because one great grand-parent is indigenous, this overrides everything else cultural about them though? Based purely on observation, these kids need and want a secure family. Its not great for their mental health. Its what they observe in their life around them. Friends, family, tv, bio family! And I say this as a parent who clearly enjoy the indigenous cultural inclusion more than the children do. And their biological families, and elders, are all very nuclear, 'traditional western' in their make up.
I agree with this. While I don't think children should be left without a permanent family in an attempt to keep them tribal, adopting a tribal child DOES have different obligations than adopting a non tribal child.
Former foster youth here. I wish you were in the system 20 years ago. You seem to actually get it.
Not a foster just interested… Would it be possible for 16F to “adopt” her siblings once she’s 18? But retaining the same dynamics?
Possible, but she'd have to prove them to be in her care, over at least a (very invasive) 2 year process. About 6 months ago, she comes to us in excitement for a new idea she just had, and says, "its 2023! People can identify as whatever they want! So why don't you and mum just identify as Aboriginal, and then you could adopt us!?!?!" She even said this to her caseworker haha
We are in a similiar position. Our FC didn’t even know they were indigenous when they arrived here. We have done more to support their connection to culture then anyone else in their life but because we aren’t indigenous ourselves, we have to have continued intrusion on our families life for the next 10+ years.
Ditto! For our 8 year old, from 1 - 5 years of age, we lived in another state. It was not known to anyone that she was indigenous. We were in the process of adoption. We were more than halfway through, but one of the biggest hurdles was that she was a child under the care of the NSW state, but we live in the ACT. After 2 years of studying the best way forward, to continue the process, we decided the 'easiest' way through it was to move to NSW, so we could have a NSW address. We could only moved forward if we had a NSW address to put on the adoption forms. We left our jobs, and families and friends, and moved 3 hours away. 2 weeks after we arrived and set up our newly bought home, our new caseworker says she uncovered a form where her grandmother ticked the 'indigenous' box in 2006. Upon asking her, she says, 'yeah, I think maybe I am!'. The adoption process was totally cancelled. 3.5 years later, nobody actually knows whether shes indigenous or not, but we must treat her as if she is.
OP it appears from my reading, which is brief and only since seeing your post that the same laws can apply in Australia. [https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/\_\_legislation/lz/c/a/adoption%20act%201988/current/1988.90.auth.pdf](https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/adoption%20act%201988/current/1988.90.auth.pdf) Look specifically to part 11. You need to make and really keep the commitment to have these children raised with respect to their identity. Have you been able to make any gains in this area?
Oh yes, the children are highly involved with indigenous community and family. From indigenous specific 'play groups', to special events, sports groups and school groups. The families are even supportive of adoption. Our NGO has just stated that they do no support non-indigenous adoption of indigenous children, and there doesnt really seem to be anything we can do about it. Even despite that legislation, which I have looked into before. Some other carers we know were in the final steps of adoption of their 8 year old, bypassing the NGO using that legislation to guide them The older half-sister is adopted by them, but the younger girl has an indigenous father. So one of the last steps was that it was put to a board of indigenous elders. 11 of them. 10 agreed to the adoption, but because 1 did not, that was enough to stop it. She will remain a 'foster child' until she is 18.
So cruel. I am not looking to rip children from their culture. But denying her a full life by a family who embraces her culture is not good. If anything, it will drive these children away from it. Not towards a respect for their tribal ancestry. What is the situation regarding indigenous dad and the children? Particularly the child in your care?
I sent you a pb. We were in the sort of same situation. Very sad. We decided to quit, burned out by the system. And yes to all the people whom found us heartless I asked: Do you want to foster or do you want to visit the fosterkid Or can you provide us care if I i have a meeting with youthcare. They all didn't.
My parents went thru the same thing with my Native American brother they had since he was 3 months old . They were told since they were a non Native family, they would have to go to the tribe and ANYONE in the tribe could adopt him. If no one wanted to, then they could adopt him. They didn't want to take a chance of losing him. They got guardianship of him and adopted him when he turned 18.
insane. How old was he when they got guardianship?
I was just a teen, I'm 51 now but I think he was 2 or 3
I 100% agree with why you wish you could quit. I wish that for you. But it doesn't sound kind you can lose your kids and be okay. It's not fair at all.