INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1977

    HEARING
    BEFORE THE
    UNITED STATES SENATE
    SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
    NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
    FIRST SESSION

    AUGUST 4, 1977



    STATEMENT OF GOLDIE DENNY, DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
    QUINAULT NATION AND NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN
    INDIANS, ACCOMPANIED BY BERTHRAM HIRSCH, ASSOCIATION
    OF AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS

    Ms. DENNY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My name is Goldie Denny. I am director of social service for the
    Quinault Tribe. I will be giving testimony on behalf of the National
    Congress of American Indians as well as the Quinault Tribe.

    First of all, I would like to start out by saying I am appalled at
    what I have just heard from our trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    But I don't know why I am surprised because this has been typical
    of the BIA's lack of response to Indian problems for a good number
    of years.

    I think it is a gross neglect of responsibility that they made these
    comments here today. I say this because these comments do not reflect
    the thinking of people in Indian country, the people who live on the
    reservations, the people who deal with Indian child welfare problems
    on a day-to-day basis.

    At the 1976 33d annual convention of the National Congress of
    American Indians a resolution was passed supporting the then draft
    Senate bill 3777. It was passed unanimously by 130 Indian tribes in
    the United States supporting the basic concepts that are contained
    within this bill.

    The BIA is supposed to represent the Indian views. But when 130
    Indian tribes say, "This is what we want," the BIA says, "We don't
    want this for the Indians."

    I cannot understand that thinking at all.

    In addition, at that same convention, a policy resolution, No. 5, was
    adopted by the National Congress of American Indians Convention.

    The title of that resolution was the "International Intertribal Child
    Welfare Compact." Indians were attempting on their own to establish
    some type of system for identifying where their lost children were
    and how to get them back.

    In addition to that, policy resolution No. 10 was passed. This was
    addressing the interstate placement of Indian children, whether for
    cultural, educational, or whatever reasons. Indian people are entitled to
    know where their children are and what is going to happen to them.
    They are entitled to have complete control of their children.

    The failure of the BIA and the State and county welfare services'
    practices has been clearly evidenced in the 1974 hearings. I will not
    burden you with the many horror stories of things that have happened
    to Indian children because --

    Chairman ABOUREZK. Ms. Denny, I think you ought to tell a couple
    of horror stories while the administration witnesses are here.

    Ms. DENNY. I will tell my own.
    When I was approximately 4 years old, I was one of five children.
    Our mother was deceased. We lived with our father. My grandmother
    came in to help take care of us.

    My sister and I were removed by the welfare department because
    we were caught out in the street barefoot, wading in mud puddles. I
    don't see anything wrong with being barefoot, wading in mud puddles.
    I had a good time. I might have been a little dirty, but dirt washes off.
    But what's up in the head does not wash off.

    There was no reason for that type of removal. I was returned home,
    but that is one instance.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. For the record, is that the kind of thing that
    goes on around the country, around Indian reservations when the
    non-Indian social welfare agencies decide that they know what is best
    for the Indian kids?

    Ms. DENNY. Absolutely.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. I recall the testimony in 1974. 1 believe it
    was a psychiatrist who testified that, most of the time, the Indian
    children are even better off if their mother happens to be an alcoholic.

    Mr. HIRCH. That was Dr. Joseph Westermeier who gave that
    testimony.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. Do you recall exactly what he said at the
    time?

    Mr. HIRSCH. My recollection is that he said that the trauma that is
    caused to the children--Indian children, in particular--in light of the
    studies that he has done and the patients that he has had, is far worse
    in that they spend many years growing up in non-Indian homes and
    then have to struggle for identity when they reach late adolescence and
    early adulthood. He says many of these people end up on skid rows in
    cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul and Los Angeles. Generally speaking,
    children are better off growing up in their own homes, even with
    alcoholic parents. It is not a fact that alcoholic parents necessarily
    create a situation that is so harmful to a child that they must be taken
    out of that home.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. I think there was testimony at the time that
    children grew up much healthier with their parents irrespective of
    the physical or mental condition of the parents -- within reasonable
    bounds. They were much happier there than if they were dragged out
    of the home and an attempt was made to bring them up in a non-
    Indian home.

    There was another aspect. I am sorry that I cannot remember
    exactly what it is right now.

    Mr. HIRSCH. I think what he was saying, Senator Abourezk, is that
    Indian children grow up in their own communities and with their
    own families and at least know that they are Indian. Regardless of
    the kinds of problems that they may have during that growing up


    78

    period, they do not have to start with the process of learning who
    they are. If they grow up in non-Indian homes, they grow up thinking
    that they are white and expect to be treated as other white people.
    They are treated that way when they are little kids. But then, when
    they reach late adolescence and early adulthood, the entire community
    looks at them and says, "You're Indian; you can't date our children.
    You can't be employed in our businesses," and so on.

    So, these kids who have grown up perhaps in healthful environ-
    ments and have had an integrating psychological growth period begin
    to disintegrate psychologically; while the children who have grown
    up in somewhat difficult economic and social circumstances, but who
    know they are Indian, can begin to integrate psychologically and
    develop whole personalities when they are in late adolescence and
    early adulthood.

    I think that was the essence of Dr. Westmeier's testimony; and Dr.
    Bob Bergman, who testified at that time, gave similar testimony.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. I apologize for interrupting you, but I wanted
    to try to bring that out.

    Ms. DENNY. That is quite right, Senator.

    One of the things that the BIA seems to think will help us is S. 1928,
    while criticizing S. 1214 for imposing standards on Indian people.
    That is not true. The intent of the bill is to impose standards upon
    the State, county, and Federal agencies who are now imposing their
    materialistic standards on Indian people.

    So, the BIA statement is simply not a true statement; and does
    not describe, the intent of this bill it all.

    It is not interfering with any Indian tribe or any individual's right
    because the bill is purely asking for the notification to tribes go that
    they can respond within 30 days. The tribe has the option not to
    respond. They do not have to respond to this at all. So, I do not see
    that that is detracting from any tribal rights or any Indian individ-
    ual's rights.

    These standards set forth in this document are long overdue.
    The Quinault Tribe is located in the State of Washington which is a
    Public Law 280 State. The Quinault people have suffered the same
    injustice that any other Indian tribe has. We have lost a great number
    of children through foster care and adoption by non-Indian case-
    workers who come upon the reservation and remove children for
    stupid reasons: You don't have enough bedrooms in your house; you
    don't have this; and you don't have that. It is all based upon mate-
    rialistic possessions.

    Indian people have successfully raised many, many happy chil-
    dren and were providing good parenthood for many, many years be-
    fore we had middle class American standards imposed upon us as to
    how we are supposed to be caring for our children.

    I cannot understand why the BIA is not going along. As Mr. Butler
    says, Indian people are now beginning to speak out, learning, and
    trying to take care of some of their own problems. This is what Indian
    people are saying: The Federal, State, and county governments have
    messed up Indian child welfare matters ever since they started med-
    dling around in them. So why not let Indian people run their own
    show for a change? They can do it a lot better than any other agency


    79

    The Indian people understand the problems better, and they are
    better equipped to do it. And they will say, "Well, we've got to
    take care of these Indians because they don't have enough education;
    they don't have the skills." I heard a very skilled lady up here this
    morning who could not make a commitment as to whether this abuse
    toward Indian children should be halted or not. She could not answer
    that question. I do not understand that. If that is an educated opinion --
    well, I am glad I don't have that education.

    I maintain that any Indian person can provide social services on
    an Indian reservation if they do not even have an eighth grade educa-
    tion. They understand the problems better. They have lived there. They
    can relate to their own people better than a non-Indian person who
    has a Ph. D. who might come in and try to tell them how they should
    be operating.

    I would like to cite the Quinault Tribe as an example of how
    Indian people can develop successful programs on their own.

    Quinault Tribe has developed on its own, with no help from the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, no help from the State, no help from the
    county, a human resource delivery system consisting of the provision
    of 34 different types of services on the reservation. The social service
    department is just one portion of that human resource delivery system.
    I am the director. I have trained five paraprofessional Quinault case-
    workers.

    We have been in operation approximately 5 years. In that period of
    time, I have been able to train the staff so that they have been able to
    assume all the child welfare responsibilities that were at one time ad-
    ministered by the State and county officials. We handle all child wel-
    fare cases such as foster care, adoption, the child protective services,
    and juvenile delinquency services. We offer many services.

    It took a while to establish our credibility within the State court
    system. It was not easy; but, after being in operation and providing
    services for over a year the State began recognizing that Quinault
    Social Services Department was a legitimate organization. It set a
    precedent. All courts give Quinault Social Services Department joint
    supervision on any child custody case in the Gracee Harbor and Jef-
    ferson County area along with the department of social and health
    services, which has the legal jurisdiction. That is a major break-
    through.

    We have more credibility in the courts than the department of social
    and health services does in our area.

    These are some of the advantages of a tribe operating its own social
    services delivery system. You can be innovative. You do not have to
    be restricted by the old ways of doing things that the non-Indian
    people have taught you to do. The foster care program in the entire
    United States, not only for Indians but for every child, is a total
    disgrace.

    The average length of foster care in the State of Washington for
    any child is 4.5 years. I think that is a disgrace.

    Quinault has developed its own foster care system, thereby limiting
    the length of stay in foster care to less than a year.

    I want to continue on with the advantages of a tribe being able to
    implement Senate bill 1214.

    The tribe is not restricted by agency rules and regulations and
    meaningless forms.

    All Quinault children are now placed in Quinault foster homes.
    Foster home recruitment has increased licensed foster homes on the
    reservation from 7 to 31.

    Fifty-two Quinault children have been returned from foster care
    to their natural parents. All Quinault juvenile cases are referred to
    the Quinault Social Services Department by the Grace Harbor Juve-
    nile Department.

    The Washington Administrative Code was amended October 27,
    1976, to address Indian child welfare placement standards in the
    State of Washington. The Washington Administrative Code con-
    tains the same standards that are set forth in Senate bill 1214.
    I think you might look at the State of Washington as a model of
    how it is being implemented. I strongly support and recommend
    passage of Senate bill 1214.

    NCAI has submitted their narrative comments on the bill in sup-
    port of it. In addition to that, we have some specific recommendations
    on Senate bill 1914 to strengthen the bill. We are submitting those
    for the record.

    Chairman ABOUREZK. That material as well as your entire prepared
    statement will be inserted in the record.


    Home | Index