Custodial Evaluations among Indigenous First Nations Communities

Heather L. Sorensen, B.A. & Kristine M. Jacquin, Ph.D.

Introduction

• Indigenous First Nations (FN) people, also referred to as Native Americans, have endured a long and painful history of abuse, trauma, and genocide since colonization (Evans-Campbell, 2008).

• Relatedly, the history of colonization and genocide in the Americas upon FN people has included the kidnap, cultural and historical erasure involved in bordering schools, rape, child-sex trafficking, and murder of FN children (Horne, 2018).

• The theft, forced assimilation, and cultural/historical erasure of FN children did not end with the closing of abusive and inhumane residential schools (Dudley, 2017).

The Indian Adoption Project

• As the horrors of residential schools came to light and necessarily required closure, a federal program titled the American Indian Adoption Project continued the removal of FN children from their families (Sargent, 2017).

• The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) was directly involved in the Indian Adoption Project (Sargent, 2017).

• The Indian Adoption Project, and relatedly the CWLA, encouraged the removal of FN children and subsequent adoption to white families due to poor living conditions; these living conditions were caused by the nearly uninhabitable land allocated to them by treaties with the U.S. government (Jacobs, 2015; Palmiste, 2011).

• In addition, FN children were presented as needing rescuing from sick and incapable parents and FN culture thereby invoking racial undertones and a “white-savior” complex (Palmiste, 2011; Sargent, 2017; Straubhaar, 2015).

• Concomitantly, the U.S. government benefitted from FN children being adopted and assimilated into white homes.

• First Nations populations had been increasing which meant more federal dollars would have been allocated to tribes; however, with FN children adopted out and removing their tribal membership as a result, the federal government would not be responsible for allocating the expected increase in funds to the tribes (Palmiste, 2011; Thornton, 1996).

• The adoption of FN children to non-native families is posited as a way the federal government reduced perceived FN populations and disenfranchised those who could not be stolen and sold to white families (Palmiste, 2011; Sargent, 2017).

Consequences of the Indian Adoption Project

• From 1959 to 1967, the Indian Adoption Project was implemented and became responsible for 25-35% of FN children being removed from their families and adopted to non-native families (Fuenzalida, 2010; Palmiste, 2011).

• The removal of FN children perpetuated the cultural genocide of FN traditions and customs, thereby furthering forced acculturation in the U.S.

• While unofficial adoption was not unheard of in FN practices, children were always placed with relatives and termination of parental rights was never a practice in FN culture (Wills & Norris, 2010).

• During the government sanctioned removal of FN children from their families and culture, depression, despair, and suicide increased dramatically (Wills & Norris, 2010).

• By 1978, the systematic eradication of FN culture was met by opposition in public forums on a national level whereby the U.S. congress was compelled to react (Wills & Norris, 2010).

Forensic Implications

• Congress ratified the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to mandate all states and agencies to be aware of the cultural importance of FN family development when separating FN children from their biological parents or FN caretakers (Wills & Norris, 2010).

• The separation of FN children traumatized FN people and accentuates the importance of culturally competent and historically aware custodial evaluations in contemporary times.

• The ICWA necessitates practitioners such as forensic psychologists to be aware of FN culture and parenting customs, consult with experts in the various FN cultural domains, and use this information in the decision making process (Wills & Norris, 2010).

• Unfortunately, FN customs and traditions are largely unresearched and continue to be neglected in the field of psychology.

• Despite the ICWA expectations, removal of FN children from FN caretakers and foster placement with non-FN foster caregivers is greater than it is for non-FN children (Wills & Norris, 2010).

Conclusions

• It is imperative for the field of forensic psychology, in providing ethical services, to acknowledge the deficit in knowledge regarding FN culture, examine personal biases, seek expert consults on FN culture, and understand how FN culture impacts the tools used to make custodial evaluations.

• In addition, this understanding must expand past custodial evaluations.

• Currently, custodial evaluations are virtually the only area of forensic practice that has received any attention in regards to FN culture and implications.

• Much progress is needed in this area for ethical services to be rendered and it is the responsibility of this field to do no harm.

1316

10

1922

0

5

10

15

20

25

Relative Risk of Foster Placement or Adoption for First Nations Children

MT f oster SD foster WA f osterMT adopt SD adopt