Thread by @rebeccanagle

During the #SCOTUS oral argument in #Brackeen several Justices seemed to think #ICWA takes Native children from foster parents they attached to & that’s bad.

So here’s a list of every time the foster parents in this case moved a foster kid or fought for a kid to be moved:

We’ll start with the Brackeens.

The first child they ever fostered was not an ICWA case bc the kid was not Native. After 5 months, they asked CPS to take the child back bc the 3 yr old was “difficult” and “suffocating”.

In 2019, when the Brackeens fought for and got custody of YRJ the child was a year old. She had been raised the first year of her life by a different Texas foster family, who was willing to adopt her. At the time they got custody, she was not being raised by the Brackeens.

So if maintaining the “attachment“ a foster child has to their foster parent is the “best interest” of that child, why did the Brackeens decide to move foster children twice?

The Brackeens co-plaintiffs the Clifford’s wanted to adopt Child P. When a Family Court ruled on Child P’s case, she had lived with her grandmother for four of the seven years of her life. She had lived with a Clifford‘s for 18 months.

What is most true about the “attachment” argument about ICWA is that it is made about children’s attachment to non-Native families, but not about their attachment to their own Native relatives.

It even happened in the Baby Girl case. After the Supreme Court ruled ICWA didn’t apply, the case was sent back to Family Court in South Carolina. At that time, baby girl had lived with her father for two years—half her life.

The Family Court didn’t even have a hearing on her best interest considering her attachment to her dad. Without ICWA, the court ordered the child back to the adoptive couple.