Native Children and Foster Care Money

[Zeke]

1. Asking me to "shove it" is an obvious manner in which to retort because you don't, really, have an adequate response.

2. You second assertion is just laughable on two fronts: that it is valid and that you continue to insist that "whites" are dominant. (There's your problem!)

3. Why is it deplorable to place a Native child with next-of-kin on the rez? Because, often, the rez is the problem. If you have issues with me pointing out that Native folks who get their kids removed due to $$$ typically still find enough for cigarettes and Thunderbird? Then make it something other then typical reality.

4. You're right in that, in general, I don't mention my kids or their mother. (This was, perhaps, the first time because personalization of an issue hurts analysis.) That said, the point is to illustrate that there is a difference in kids who are raised in an environment that I support versus the one you are -- failing -- to justify. To wit, when you find a kid on the rez who plays football, is nearly a black belt in karate, enjoys lattes, plays jazz saxophone, skips grades and isn't twelve yet? Call me and I'll send lunch $$$ for a week in support. If/when you don't find one, realize that it isn't the kid's fault.

5. Have you ever had to take a child? I have. ICWA works in the best interest of nobody. (If your best defense to be, become, or act as a parent is that "you're Native," you possess an exceedingly weak argument.) In sum, what you're seeing is the opinion of someone who has been forced to deal with these issues and has actually thought about it as opposed to sadly trying to rationalize something due to emotion, fear, ignorance, and an inability to see past their own nose because they feel entitled to some sort of protection due to genetics.

You realize that makes you no different than the clan, right? It, also, vividly points out that you don't, actually, possess any argument of merit.

Me? Mine is pretty simple: if a Native parent is an unfit parent, they should get their kids yanked. If the environment adds to the situation, kids shouldn't be returned to it.

A good white/black/plaid/martian parent beats the hell out of a crappy Native one, any day.

Understand this, if you're a crappy parent, you're NOT "the victim." Your problem, and that of others like you, is that you just -- so desperately -- want to be one.

Again, you're shamefully embarrassing.

[Zeke]

Hardly an argument worthy of your intellect Zeke.

It vividly makes the point, immediately.

And you KNOW it's true.

Not feeling guilty about spending $100 wantonly because you're $1,000,000 in debt doesn't justify anything beyond WHY you're in the circumstance to begin with.

[pigheaded]

1. Asking me to "shove it" is an obvious manner in which to retort "because I don't, really, have an adequate response."

2. You second assertion is just laughable on two fronts: that it is valid and that you continue to insist that "whites" are dominant. (There's your problem!)

Read it again Zeke, dominant White Society! that is your problem, you hear what you want and not what was said.

3. Why is it deplorable to place a Native child with next-of-kin on the rez? Because, often, the rez is the problem. If you have issues with me pointing out that Native folks who get their kids removed due to $$$ typically still find enough for cigarettes and Thunderbird? Then make it something other then typical reality.

Again why can you not realize that fact that no one argued that if you ARE indeed a piece of crap who abuses, neglects or assaults a child you should have a child removed, but why will you not admit, that the issue is not just a rez issue, the same stuff happens in families off the rez. just as there are good relatives and foster families that are on the rez in which a child can be placed and protected.

4. You're right in that, in general, I don't mention my kids or their mother. (This was, perhaps, the first time because personalization of an issue hurts analysis.) That said, the point is to illustrate that there is a difference in kids who are raised in an environment that I support versus the one you are -- failing -- to justify. To wit, when you find a kid on the rez who plays football, is nearly a black belt in karate, enjoys lattes, plays jazz saxophone, skips grades and isn't twelve yet? Call me and I'll send lunch $$$ for a week in support. If/when you don't find one, realize that it isn't the kid's fault.

Seriously are you so bitter and jaded, you can't even accept an apology?
And to answer your question, I played footbal, basketball, obtains my 2nd degree blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, played the piano, drums and guitar, never skipped a grade, won't even try to tell you that it was offered because it wasn't, but was the head of my class and would have been valedictorian, had I not had to drop out to take care of a girlfriend and my first child. I thought being responsible and accountable for my actions was far more appropriate than finishing school, some thing that would have still been there, and was, when I went back 15 years later. So you can stop pushing the responsible for ones own actions card, I think I am well versed in that. At NO time have I ever denied being responsible for ones actions, but even mistakes do not account for just dos or taking ones medicine when a system is set up in complete contrast of another's culture. Plain fact. On top of that I was student body President, and in the chess club, and played summer ball, oh, and I lived and grew up on the rez. So taking nothing away from your son, I think that is great, all children should have an opportunity to be happy and successful as you child, but that can also happen on the rez, believe me, I am NOT the exception, there are several of us, who lived on the rez, who have become successful, many still living on the same rez we grew up on, with there children's still in there home, acquiring a quality education, and quality values, ON THE REZ!

5. Have you ever had to take a child? I have. ICWA works in the best interest of nobody. (If your best defense to be, become, or act as a parent is that "you're Native," you possess an exceedingly weak argument.) In sum, what you're seeing is the opinion of someone who has been forced to deal with these issues and has actually thought about it as opposed to weakly trying to rationalize something due to emotion, fear, ignorance, and an inability to see past their own nose because they feel entitled to some sort of protection due to genetics.

I'm sorry all I heard was blah blah blah. Who the hell said that the best defense of being a parent was the pre-qualification of being Native? Again stick to what was said, not what you thought you heard. If you have a question of what I'm saying, ask, I'll clarify.

You realize that makes you no different than the clan, right? It, also, vividly points out that you don't, actually, possess any argument of merit.

My statement stands. No argument, just pointing out the racist remark. Take it how ever you want.

Me? Mine is pretty simple: if a Native parent is an unfit parent, they should get their kids yanked. If the environment adds to the situation, kids shouldn't be returned to it.

A good white/black/plaid/martian parent beats the hell out of a crappy Native one, any day.

A good parent of any color beats the hell out of a crappy one! that is what many of us have said on several occasions, how did you miss that?

Understand this, if you're a crappy parent, you're NOT "the victim." Your problem, and that of others like you, is that you just -- so desperately -- want to be one.

I would like you to find me the post that said, if your kind have been removed, because you are a crappy, alcoholic, abusive, neglectful, mentally and emotionally abusive piece of trash, ... it's not your fault. Find me those words, Zeke, because you will never find, them. For the last time, If you are deserving of having your child removed, you are deserving. But as shown to you, not only by the article, but also yaahl's post, children ARE removed, for reasons other than being a piece of crap. Continuing to argue against that statement make YOU the embarrassment.

Again, you're embarrassing.

NOOOOOOO, I'm an @$$hole!, and [email protected] good one,(which is alot better than being a fecal matter rotation technician, that would be you) I'm also stubborn and get off on calling people out when they try to polish a turd.

[kgirl7]

Pigheaded, I'm glad you are called pigheaded! :-D Don't worry about the "insults".
I think there needs to be an investigation into these groups receiving all this money for Native kids, especially the ones labeled as Special needs. It reminds me of when I used to work in the school system. Kids labeled as special needs brought in more money and they often labeled the minority kids Special needs. I hope people continue to pay more attention to this so that more kids don't get taken away because of idiotic things like a birthmark.

[Toolbox]

(Truncated)
...
And to answer your question, I played footbal, basketball, obtains my 2nd degree blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, played the piano, drums and guitar, never skipped a grade, won't even try to tell you that it was offered because it wasn't, but was the head of my class and would have been valedictorian... ...Plain fact. On top of that I was student body President, and in the chess club, and played summer ball, oh, and I lived and grew up on the rez.
...

Looks like Zeke owes you lunch for a week

[comadre]

Looks like Zeke owes you lunch for a week

GREAT OBSERVATION

[comadre]

I think there needs to be an investigation into these groups receiving all this money for Native kids, especially the ones labeled as Special needs.
I so agree

I so agree

It reminds me of when I used to work in the school system. Kids labeled as special needs brought in more money and they often labeled the minority kids Special needs.
There are two labels that are used as special needs within the child protective community. "Special needs" in and of itself means exactly that. But there is also "Special needs adoption" which means that the child is not likely to be adopted without greater incentive.Such as sibling groups, minority populations, high risk children, special needs kids,ect.

I hope people continue to pay more attention to this so that more kids don't get taken away because of idiotic things like a birthmark.
I do agree here. I was told by my child's doctor to be sure to explain up front to anyone caring for my child that he has a documentation in his doctor's record as an infant about his mongollion spot in order to avoid a problem with protective authorities.Apparently it has happened all too often.

Gosh I can not stress enough that the native community really needs to be assertive in their dealings with the child protective agencies.Far too often native parents feel so helpless born out of the feelings of powerlessness (understandably so)and therefore retreat from their dealings with social workers rather than fight.Then I believe the social workers can misperceive the native parent as not caring when in fact that is far from true.( and this is only one example of cultural clash)What we need for our communities is greater awareness on both sides of the issue for the sake of our kids.
Then I think it could be helpful to address the "system" issue that is so pervasive in regards to the problem of lack of equal power base which yaahl did well to outline in her family's story and is still a problem across Native America according to many families who still report that experience.
Lots of work to be done around this issue. So the question begs an answer.....Have you hugged your local social worker who works on these issues? Have you talked with your tribal councilmen and councilwomen about these things?

[Zeke]

Read it again Zeke, dominant White Society! that is your problem, you hear what you want and not what was said.

That's functionally incorrect, you just do not express yourself well. For example, if you believe white society to be dominant, what are you actually saying? Uh huh, that's what I thought...

Again why can you not realize that fact that no one argued that if you ARE indeed a piece of crap who abuses, neglects or assaults a child you should have a child removed, but why will you not admit, that the issue is not just a rez issue, the same stuff happens in families off the rez. just as there are good relatives and foster families that are on the rez in which a child can be placed and protected.

No. YOU are the one fixated with the rez, what with trying to de-Nativize me because I am not from one. This is, as I have reported, a Native issue with the fallacy being that you believe Nativeness excuses parental lapses. (It doesn't.)

Seriously are you so bitter and jaded, you can't even accept an apology? And to answer your question, I played footbal, basketball, obtains my 2nd degree blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, played the piano, drums and guitar, never skipped a grade, won't even try to tell you that it was offered because it wasn't, but was the head of my class and would have been valedictorian, had I not had to drop out to take care of a girlfriend and my first child.

LAME. Woulda', coulda', shoulda' but circumstances wouldn't allow it. There's that weak-willed thinking again.

I thought being responsible and accountable for my actions was far more appropriate than finishing school, some thing that would have still been there, and was, when I went back 15 years later.

Better. What sort of improved lifestyle could you child have had were you accountable in the first place? I'm sure that having a child after achieving academic goals was more "responsible" and "accountable." But hey, it was your choice: just cease whining about it while wearing your red badge like a war wound.

So you can stop pushing the responsible for ones own actions card, I think I am well versed in that.

And yet you preach entitlement. Basically, I call b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.

At NO time have I ever denied being responsible for ones actions, but even mistakes do not account for just dos or taking ones medicine when a system is set up in complete contrast of another's culture.

Like NOT spending $$$ on cigarettes and Thunderbird instead of your kids?

Plain fact. On top of that I was student body President, and in the chess club, and played summer ball, oh, and I lived and grew up on the rez. So taking nothing away from your son, I think that is great, all children should have an opportunity to be happy and successful as you child, but that can also happen on the rez, believe me, I am NOT the exception, there are several of us, who lived on the rez, who have become successful, many still living on the same rez we grew up on, with there children's still in there home, acquiring a quality education, and quality values, ON THE REZ!

Which is a lot like saying lions at the zoo are getting a great education at being zoo lions.

I'm sorry all I heard was blah blah blah. Who the hell said that the best defense of being a parent was the pre-qualification of being Native?

ICWA, which you stupidly laud.

Again stick to what was said, not what you thought you heard. If you have a question of what I'm saying, ask, I'll clarify.

When you say anything clear -- do you know what punctuation, complete thoughts, paragraphs and even sub-adequate spelling is? -- you won't need to keep clarifying.

My statement stands. No argument, just pointing out the racist remark. Take it how ever you want.

That you're racist? I assure you, it's self-evident.

A good parent of any color beats the hell out of a crappy one! that is what many of us have said on several occasions, how did you miss that?

Likely somewhere within your blindingly ignorant and ineffectual excuses for Native community being a panacea?

I would like you to find me the post that said, if your kind have been removed, because you are a crappy, alcoholic, abusive, neglectful, mentally and emotionally abusive piece of trash, ... it's not your fault.

If you actually think out your short-sighted process, that's what you're saying.

Find me those words, Zeke, because you will never find, them. For the last time, If you are deserving of having your child removed, you are deserving. But as shown to you, not only by the article, but also yaahl's post, children ARE removed, for reasons other than being a piece of crap.

If you willingly exist within crap, you are crap. Again, you don't even understand what you're saying.

Continuing to argue against that statement make YOU the embarrassment.

What argument? You haven't even laid out a cohesive theory.

NOOOOOOO, I'm an @$$hole!, and [email protected] good one,(which is alot better than being a fecal matter rotation technician, that would be you) I'm also stubborn and get off on calling people out when they try to polish a turd.

Then you should cease polishing or be true to accountability, because you're just a joke to anyone who thinks.

[pigheaded]

That's functionally incorrect, you just do not express yourself well. For example, if you believe white society to be dominant, what are you actually saying? Uh huh, that's what I thought...



No. YOU are the one fixated with the rez, what with trying to de-Nativize me because I am not from one. This is, as I have reported, a Native issue with the fallacy being that you believe Nativeness excuses parental lapses. (It doesn't.)



LAME. Woulda', coulda', shoulda' but circumstances wouldn't allow it. There's that weak-willed thinking again.



Better. What sort of improved lifestyle could you child have had were you accountable in the first place? I'm sure that having a child after achieving academic goals was more "responsible" and "accountable." But hey, it was your choice: just cease whining about it while wearing your red badge like a war wound.



And yet you preach entitlement. Basically, I call b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.



Like NOT spending $$$ on cigarettes and Thunderbird instead of your kids?



Which is a lot like saying lions at the zoo are getting a great education at being zoo lions.



ICWA, which you stupidly laud.



When you say anything clear -- do you know what punctuation, complete thoughts, paragraphs and even sub-adequate spelling is? -- you won't need to keep clarifying.



That you're racist? I assure you, it's self-evident.



Likely somewhere within your blindingly ignorant and ineffectual excuses for Native community being a panacea?



If you actually think out your short-sighted process, that's what you're saying.



If you willingly exist within crap, you are crap. Again, you don't even understand what you're saying.



What argument? You haven't even laid out a cohesive theory.



Then you should cease polishing or be true to accountability, because you're just a joke to anyone who thinks.

OMG, blah, blah, blah, miss the point, blah, blah, blah, take out of context, blah, blah, blah, find something not even remotely close to the topic to b1tch about, blah, blah, blah.

Zeke, I think you left out, "I know you are but what am I?"

[Zeke]

You're just mad because you're being -- readily and ongoing -- obliterated.

That's not my fault.

But hey, I do admire your persistent alignment with idiocy in the face of reality: it's very rez of you.

[pigheaded]

Obviously you suffer from delusions of grandeur. Obliterated, hardly!

On a level you should Identify with,
"I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks back to you."

...and this would be highly rez of me
<img src="http://www.myemoticons.com/images/humor/moonies/butt-dance.gif" border="0" alt="Butt Dance" title="Butt Dance" />

[Zeke]

And ineffectual.

Again, you're just mad.

If you had a relevant retort, you'd -- try -- to use it.

Clearly, you don't.

You're such an embarrassment.

[pigheaded]

I'm not listening to Zeke, but he is still talking, la la la la la , Hmm, Zeke STILL talking imagine that

[yaahl]

Guys... come on, enough.

Regardless of whether the parents lost the kids because they were bad parents or a bad call from a social worker, there are still thousands of Native kids in foster care.

I said I wasn't going to reel off stats but you two guys have detracted from the intent of this thread with your diatribe.

Canadian Native children are eight times more likely to end up in foster care than any other social or racial group. The foster care system in Canada can barely monitor itself let alone where and what is happening to these kids.

Among top concerns is the fact the federal government funds First Nation-delivered services using a formula dating back to 1988. It assumes that a fixed percentage of all communities served by an agency need that help – whether or not the real number is higher or lower.

In British Columbia, for example, just over half of all children in care are Aboriginal yet they comprise just eight per cent of the provincial population. Poverty, poor housing and addiction lead more often to neglect in aboriginal cases, though rates of abuse are no higher than in non-native homes.

The number of on-reserve kids in care has spiked over the last 10 years along with program costs.

As of the end of March 2007, about 8,300 or five per cent of all native children had been removed from their homes.

A child who has been in care is less likely to complete high school than a child who has never been in care. For Aboriginal children in care, education results are poorer than for non-aboriginal children in care.

Between 1997 and 2001 the number of native kids in care jumped 65 per cent to 8,791 from 5,340 and has hovered around the same level since then.

It was found by the Auditor General that 55 of 108 agencies funded by (Indian Affairs) are providing child welfare services to fewer than 1,000 children living on reserve. Those agencies "do not always have the funding and capacity to provide the required range of child welfare services, and also have difficulties with governance, conflicts of interest, training and management."

We now are seeing a new age that has been named the Millennium Scoop. A major study in 2005 pegged the number at 27,500. Since then, provincial and federal data as well as empirical reports suggest the numbers have risen.

In February 1997 the adoption process for native children in Alberta changed. Under the Ministry of Children's Services' new policy, the chief and band council had to consent to every adoption of a First Nation child.

In mainstream society, the number of children in care dropped suddenly in the 1970s. That's when child welfare agencies switched their focus. Instead of removing children from their home as a first resort, they devoted resources to prevention and help for troubled families. The same approach wasn't applied toward First Nations. It has always been to remove the child. However, many FN Councils have worked toward changing that to a degree. http://www.adoption.ca/031001ytsa.htm

As much as Zeke disputes that returning a child to their home community is not a good idea, it has up here in Alberta been a minor success. So much so, that other tribal councils are using the model of the Yellowhead Tribal Council's Child and Family Services.

More info here:

http://www.fncfcs.com/who-we-are

http://fact.on.ca/news/news0212/gm021221a.htm

http://www.turtleisland.org/healing/children-families.htm

http://media.knet.ca/node/11415

And finally, not all children end up in foster care because of bad parenting. Take the case of a young Mi'kmaq boy who suffers from autism and other health issues. His mother has looked after him until she herself suffered a stroke.

Jeremy Meawasige is on the cusp of becoming the next child in that pile of statistics.

The 16-year-old Mi'kmaq from the Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia has myriad challenges: autism, cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus and a tendency to hurt himself.

But his latest affliction comes courtesy of inter-jurisdictional squabbling.

Ever since his mother had a double stroke last year and was no longer able to give her son the support he needed, she has had to rely on government funded social services.

But with each level of government pointing to the other for support, and his mother turning to band generosity in the meantime, Jeremy is now poised to be sent to an institution far from the only home he has ever known.

"They did an assessment on us, and say Jeremy is at the level where he should be institutionalized. I told them, over my dead body," said mother Maurina Beadle.

"I'm the only person he will eat for. If you put him in an institution, that's it."

But with no one willing to provide long-term funding that would cover the costs of supporting Beadle and Jeremy on reserve, authorities want to send him to an institution outside the province.

His supporters say it's a classic case of what has become known as Jordan's Principle.

"Jordan" was Jordan River Anderson, a Cree boy from Manitoba who died in hospital at the age of five as he waited for federal and provincial governments to agree how to pay for his care.

Ottawa and provincial governments have vowed not to let such a thing happen again. They say a child in need of services will receive the services immediately, and the governments will work out the payment scheme later.

But Jeremy's mother argues that if her son were off-reserve, he would be entitled to far more funding and services than he is receiving now – funding and services that would enable her to keep Jeremy at home where he belongs.

You see Zeke, it's not always about being a bad parent. I suspect you will however, find fault with the boy's mother for not moving off reserve and bowing to the pressure to have the boy shipped off to an institution.

Your debate is about a single facet of child custody and apprehension - bad parenting. Time to expand your arguments to encompass all the reasons for a child needing protection/care.

[AmigoKumeyaay]

What's Good For The Kids

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9ClurO1Btmw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>