ICWA Of 1974: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Policy

The ICWA of 1974 is a policy that directly changed the law for child welfare agencies as well as adoption agencies for Indian families. Courtesy of the Social Security Administration as it pertains to ICWA, the United States Congress states “Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture, and by providing for assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service

This statistical information suggests that there are more efforts made to place children of Indian decent with family, as mandated by the ICWA policy. There are multiple reports that state the Act is not being implemented and that the courts and agencies continue to fail at ensuring that the policy is being followed. The 2013 New York Times Article: The Indian Child Welfare Act Provides Necessary Protection, written by Terry Cross states “Yet, despite the law, Indian children continue to be placed outside of Indian homes, even when their families are willing and capable of raising them”. The actual impact of the policy also indicates multiple conflicts related to the lack of placement with individuals of non Indian decent. The 2016 article “American Indian child welfare law under fire, written by Barini Chakraborty, shed light on the backlash of the law. The article examines a 2013 incident where a grandmother of Indian decent had a long standing history of abuse and neglect, which resulted in her throwing her two year old step granddaughter over a balcony. The argument is that there should be specific provisions that protect children, and the protection of these children should not be limited by ICWA. The child who was killed was removed

On one side you have the Indian tribes and coalitions arguing that the unjust removal of these children and the lack of unoffered placements within the tribes greatly affected their community. Many of the individuals who agree with the argument are people who were directly affected by being dislocated themselves prior to the 1974 act. The population affected greatly are those who were a product of non existence of the law. The opposing side argues that there is a racially motivated bias and that the outcome is that children who need to be adopted. There were multiple controversial cases known as