HOME
The Info List - Mississippi Band Of Choctaw Indians V. Holyfield





Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
held that the Indian Child Welfare Act
Indian Child Welfare Act
governed adoptions of Indian children, and a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court regardless of the location of birth of the child if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation.[1]

Contents

1 Background

1.1 History of removal 1.2 Indian Child Welfare Act 1.3 Lower courts

2 Opinion of the Court

2.1 Dissent

3 Subsequent developments 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links

Background[edit] History of removal[edit] From 1850 to about 1960, American Indian children were forcibly taken from their families and their tribes to go to Indian boarding schools, in what has been described as both efforts at assimilation and genocide.[2] At the schools, Indian children were expected to speak English and practice Christianity; they were punished for speaking their own language.[3] Reformers wanted the Indians to choose "assimilation over extinction."[4] In 1890 approximately 12,000 Indian children were attending Indian boarding schools,[5] and, according to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs:

The general purpose of the Government is the preparation of Indian youth for assimilation into the national life by such a course in training as will prepare them for the duties and privileges of American citizenship."[6][a]

By 1928 assimilation through the boarding schools was no longer popular with the public, and the Meriam Report condemned the practice of forcibly removing Indian children from their families.[8][b] This type of removal ended during the 1930s. After World War II, the intervention of social welfare workers into overseeing Indian families resulted in another type of removal, by which Indian children were removed from their families because of what were judged poor situations and placed in foster care or for adoption.[10] In many cases, the dominant non-Indian culture justified the removal in order to protect or rescue the children from barbarism on the reservation.[11] Indian children were placed outside the home at a rate five times greater than for non-Indian children.[12][c] Indian Child Welfare Act[edit] See also: Indian Child Welfare Act In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act
Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA).[14] This law was enacted to protect tribes and their children; due to the high rate of Indian children who were being removed from their families and placed with non-Indian families, the children's Indian identities were lost and tribe survival was being threatened.[15] In many cases, the children were removed from families who resided on Indian reservations, where the state government did not have legal jurisdiction.[16] Many parents and children were denied due process, either by the state agency or the state court, leading to a finding by Congress that the states had failed to recognize tribal culture, relations, and standards.[17] Congress set up both procedural and substantive provisions in the ICWA that are designed to 1) eliminate the need to remove Indian children due to cultural bias; 2) try to ensure that Indian children are placed in foster and adoptive homes that reflect Indian culture; and 3) to promote the use of tribal, rather than state, courts to adjudicate Indian child custody proceedings.[18] The ICWA gives the tribal court exclusive jurisdiction for children who are born or who live on tribal land, and concurrent jurisdiction with state courts in all other cases.[19] Lower courts[edit] In 1985, a set of Indian twins were born in Harrison County, Mississippi, 200 miles from the Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians. The mother had moved to Harrison County for the sole purpose of giving birth off the reservation and for placing the children with the Holyfields.[20] The natural parents were not married, and both parents executed a consent for adoption in the Harrison County Chancery Court. The Holyfields, a non-Indian couple, adopted the twins. The state court signed a final decree of adoption in early 1986. Two months later, the tribe moved to vacate the adoption, stating that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction. The state trial court denied their motion, noting that the children had never lived on the reservation and were not born there. The tribe appealed to the Mississippi
Mississippi
Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.[21] The tribe appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.[22] Opinion of the Court[edit] Justice William J. Brennan
William J. Brennan
delivered the opinion of the court. Brennan reviewed the intent of Congress and noted that one in eight Indian children were adopted out and that 90% of those children went to non-Indian homes. He noted that for children born or residing on a reservation, the tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction. In other cases, the tribal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. In those cases, on the motion of a parent or the tribe, the matter is to be transferred to the tribal court with three exceptions - for "good cause," objection to the transfer by either parent, or the declination of jurisdiction in the matter by the tribal court.[23] He ruled that the emphasis the Mississippi
Mississippi
Supreme Court placed on the non-reservation birth of the children and the fact that they never lived on the reservation, and the voluntary relinquishment by the natural parents was error.[24] Both of the natural parents resided on the reservation. A child's domicile follows that of the parent. The fact that the parents traveled 200 miles to avoid giving birth on the reservation does not serve to eliminate the tribal court's exclusive jurisdiction. Since the tribal court had such jurisdiction, the state court did not, and had no authority to enter an order of adoption. Reversed and remanded.[25] Dissent[edit] Justice John P. Stevens, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
and Justice Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
dissented from the majority opinion. Stevens felt that since the parents consented to the adoption and wanted to use the state court, they should be allowed to do so. Stevens believed that the ICWA was primarily intended to apply to the involuntary removal of Indian children from their families and the tribe, and a voluntary action by parents does not have the same characteristics. Stevens would have affirmed the decision of the state courts.[26] Subsequent developments[edit] After the remand from the Supreme Court, the tribal court allowed the children to remain with their adoptive family, because “it would have been cruel to take them from the only mother they knew.” The court ordered that the children stay in contact with their natural extended family and tribe.[27] The case has had a large effect on family law involving Indian children, having been cited in more than 1,000 cases since the decision. It has also been extensively referenced in books[28] and journals on Native American law.[29] Although the Supreme Court was clear that the ICWA was to be applied to adoption cases based on the statute and the accompanying House Report, "by making sure that Indian child welfare determinations are not based on "a white, middle-class standard..."",[30] state courts created an "existing Indian family"[31] it allows exceptions to the application of the ICWA.[32] In those cases, courts had held that if the child was not part of an existing Indian family, a term that was not defined anywhere in the law, then the ICWA did not apply. At one point, nearly half of the states used the exception.[33] As of 2010, only six states use the exception. The courts now appear to be viewing tribal interests as importantly as the child's interests in these cases, and also that they have begun to consider tribal cultures, in the sense of the extended family being integral to a child's support. [34] Notes[edit]

^ Many Indians would not become American citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act
Indian Citizenship Act
in 1924, although by that time, many were citizens.[7] ^ The team that created the Meriam Report was headed by Lewis Meriam, who had a Bachelor's degree in economics and a Master's degree in government from Harvard University, and law degrees from National University School of Law and George Washington University.[9] ^ Up to 25-35% of Indian children were placed in foster care at some point in their lives.[13]

References[edit]

The citations in this Article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the Talk
Talk
page for this Article.

^ Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989). ^ Terri Libesman, Decolonising Indigenous Child Welfare: Comparative Perspectives 108 (2013); Ronald Niezen, Spirit Wars: Native North American Religions in the Age of Nation Building 68 (2000). ^ Libesman, at 108. ^ David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928, 16 (1995). ^ Walter L. Hixson, American Settler Colonialism 141 (2013). ^ Adams, at 24. ^ Indian Citizenship Act, June 2, 1924, Pub.L. 68–175, 43 Stat. 253; 4 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 1165 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1929). ^ Margaret D. Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940, 407 (2009); Niezen, at 68. ^ Institute for Gov't Research, The Problem of Indian Administration 79 ( Lewis Meriam et al. eds. 1928). ^ Boarding School Blues: Revisiting American Indian Educational Experiences 205-05 (Clifford E. Trafzer, Jean A. Keller, & Lorene Sisquoc eds., 2006). ^ Trafzer, at 206-07. ^ 3 Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development 481 (William Damon, Richard M. Lerner, & Nancy Eisenberg eds., 2006). ^ Billy Joe Jones, Mark Tilden, & Kelly Gaines-Stoner, The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children 2 (2d ed. 2008). ^ Indian Child Welfare Act, Nov. 8, 1978, Pub.L. 95–608, 92 Stat. 3069 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963). ^ Jones, at 2. ^ Jones, at 2. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5); Jones, at 4-5. ^ Jones, at 4-5. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1911; Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 36 (1989). ^ Solangel Maldonaldo, "Race, Culture, and Adoption: Lessons from Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield," 17 Colum. J. of Gender & L. 1 (2008). ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___; In the matter of B.B. and G.B., Minors, 511 So.2d 918 (Miss. 1987). ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___ ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1911. ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___ ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___ ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___ ^ Adam Liptak, "Case Pits Adoptive Parents Against Tribal Rights", N.Y. Times, Dec. 25, 2012, at A12. ^ N. Bruce Duthu, American Indians and the Law ___ (2008); Jones, at ___; Lynn D. Wardle, Fundamental Principles of Family Law ___ (2005). ^ Diane Allbaugh, Tribal Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
over Indian Children: Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 16 Am. Indian L. Rev. 533 (1991); Maldonaldo, 17 Colum. J. of Gender & L. at 1; Stan Watts, Voluntary Adoptions Under the Indian Child Welfare Act
Indian Child Welfare Act
of 1978: Balancing the Interests of Children, Families, and Tribes, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 213 (1989). ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___ ^ In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy L., 643 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1982) ("the Act is concerned with the removal of Indian children from an existing Indian family unit and the resultant breakup of the Indian family") (emphasis added), overruled by In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543 (Kan. 2010). ^ Dan Lewerenz & Padraic McCoy, The End of the "Existing Indian Family" Jurisprudence: Holyfield at 20, In the Matter of A.J.S. and the Last Gasps of a Dying Doctrine, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 684 (2010). ^ Lewerenz, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. at ___. ^ Lewerenz, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. at ___.

External links[edit]

Works related to Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield at Wikisource Text of Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) is available from:  CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Oyez 

v t e

Choctaw

Choctaw
Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians, Mount Tabor Indian Community

Culture

Culture Language Religion Fair Choctaw
Choctaw
Tribal School System Pashofa Stomp dance

History

Nanih Waiya Chickasaw Campaign of 1736 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek Trail of Tears American Civil War Choctaw
Choctaw
Capitol Building Code talkers Mississippi
Mississippi
Choctaw
Choctaw
Indian Federation

Politics and law

List of Choctaw
Choctaw
chiefs List of Choctaw
Choctaw
treaties Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield

Category

v t e

Rights of Native Americans in the United States

Case law

Johnson v. M'Intosh
Johnson v. M'Intosh
(1823) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
(1831) Worcester v. Georgia
Worcester v. Georgia
(1832) Fellows v. Blacksmith
Fellows v. Blacksmith
(1857) New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
(1858) Standing Bear v. Crook
Standing Bear v. Crook
(D. Neb. 1879) Ex parte Crow Dog
Ex parte Crow Dog
(1883) Elk v. Wilkins
Elk v. Wilkins
(1884) Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
(1896) Talton v. Mayes
Talton v. Mayes
(1896) Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
(1903) United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
(1941) Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
(1955) Williams v. Lee
Williams v. Lee
(1959) Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
(1960) Menominee Tribe v. United States
Menominee Tribe v. United States
(1968) McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
(1973) Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
(1974) Bryan v. Itasca County
Bryan v. Itasca County
(1976) United States v. Antelope
United States v. Antelope
(1977) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
(1978) Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
(1982) Solem v. Bartlett
Solem v. Bartlett
(1984) County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
(1985) South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
(1986) Hodel v. Irving
Hodel v. Irving
(1987) Mississippi
Mississippi
Band of Choctaw
Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland
South Dakota v. Bourland
(1993) Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
(1997) Idaho v. United States
Idaho v. United States
(2001) United States v. Lara
United States v. Lara
(2004) City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
(2005) Cobell v. Salazar
Cobell v. Salazar
(D.C. Cir. 2009) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
(2013)

Legislation

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act American Indian Religious Freedom Act Burke Act Civilization Act Curtis Act Dawes Act Diminishment Indian Arts and Crafts Act Indian Child Welfare Act Indian Citizenship Act Indian Civil Rights Act Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Indian Removal Act Indian Reorganization Act Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Nationality Act Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Native American Languages Act Nonintercourse Act Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act

Related

Aboriginal title Bureau of Indian Affairs Cherokee Commission Dawes Rolls Eagle feather law

Eagle-bone whistle

Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians

Legal status of Hawaii

Hunting license In the Courts of the Conqueror National Indian Gaming Commission Native American gaming Native American Rights Fund Public Law 280 Recognition of sacred sites State recognized tribes Treaty rights Tribal sovereignty

Federally recognized tribes Self-d

.