A woman who won custody of her grandchild involved in a pending Supreme Court case is warning the high court against finding a federal law unconstitutional, saying it would jeopardize American Indian families and their children.
Robyn Bradshaw had to fight for years to keep custody of her granddaughter after her daughter struggled with addiction.
Because Ms. Bradshaw had a non-violent felony on her record, she was initially disqualified from keeping her grandchild, leading the girl to be placed in foster care.
Ms. Bradshaw struggled for years to clear her record and regain custody of the child, but she credits the Indian Child Welfare Act for helping reunite her family.
The law is being challenged in pending Supreme Court cases in which foster families say the law is discriminatory because it requires American Indian children to be placed in tribal homes.
Generally, state courts evaluate the best interests of a child in granting custody. The federal law at issue, though, prioritizes a child’s American Indian heritage.
Ms. Bradshaw’s family is part of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. She wrote this week in The Imprint, a child and family welfare publication, that the federal law is what helped keep her family together and preserve their heritage.
“If the court rules the law unconstitutional, it will not only prevent family reunifications like my own — it will tell tribes that we do not have a right to our own children, and that our political sovereignty, which Congress has recognized for centuries is no more. For all of us, this should be a terrifying notion,” she wrote.
The justices are reviewing a clutch of cases concerning the 1978 law that gave the federal government control over removing children from Indian homes, avoiding placement with families outside of tribes.
Ms. Bradshaw’s granddaughter’s adoption was finalized, but the foster family has continued to challenge the law.
The pending cases arose when three states and seven individuals challenged parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act, saying its provisions violate the states’ rights under the 10th Amendment and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. One couple, despite having their own adoption finalized, has continued to fight the constitutionality of the law for roughly five years.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit invalidated some provisions of the law, specifically a part requiring standards when removing a child from an Indian home and a provision dictating that a child be placed in a relative or tribal family instead of a non-Indian family.
At least four of the justices voted to review the circuit court’s decision.
The high court heard oral arguments in November, and a ruling is expected by the end of June.
The cases are: Haaland, Secretary of Interior v. Brackeen, Chad; Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Chad; Texas v. Haaland, Secretary of Interior; and Brackeen, Chad v. Haaland, Secretary of Interior.
