Representative Christina Haswood, a Democrat from Lawrence and a member of the Navajo Nation, aims to strengthen indigenous rights within the state’s child welfare system to address longstanding racial and cultural disparities.
Her initiative involves the adoption of a state-level counterpart to the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law enacted in 1978 to ensure Native American children remain within Native American families.
The federal law was a response to the removal of Native American children from their families and placement in non-indigenous households.
Despite its existence, Native children still experience disproportionate representation in foster care, enduring extended stays both locally and federally.
At the national level, President Joe Biden’s health administration has proposed a rule change mandating states to provide more data in child welfare cases related to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Haswood is advocating for specific requirements in custody proceedings concerning Native American children through House Bill 2772.
This bill would grant the child’s Indian tribe jurisdiction over proceedings and compel courts to prioritize placing Native American children with their respective tribes.
Haswood noted that 17 states, including Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska, have their own state-specific versions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. These state-level adaptations aim to enhance protections, particularly in response to legal challenges to the federal law.
The federal Indian Child Welfare Act was established to rectify historical injustices, such as the forced removal of native children by the federal government and their assimilation into white mainstream culture through adoption by white families and enrollment in boarding schools.
During a bill hearing on February 19, Haswood stated, “HB2772’s purpose is not to change much but to make sure ICWA has a home in our state statutes.”
According to Haswood, “We want to ensure that every native child who faces these unfortunate circumstances knows there is a system that is fighting for their right to culture and heritage.”
Other parts of the bill, modeled after Nebraska’s ICWA, would mandate state courts to establish guidelines for proceedings involving Native American children. Additionally, state courts would be obligated to give notice of these proceedings.
A state audit conducted in 2021 on foster care cases revealed that Native American children were approximately 25% less likely to be reunited with their parents and more likely to be transferred to another agency compared to white children.
In Kansas, Black and Native American children in foster care were also more likely to reach emancipation age compared to their white counterparts.
While the Kansas Department for Children and Families remained neutral on HB2772, it stressed the importance of state support for tribal relations.
“DCF recognizes the continuing and compelling governmental interest of sovereign tribal nations in their children,” as per state testimony. “The department supports the federal policy underlying ICWA to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and Indian families by establishing minimum federal standards to prevent arbitrary and unnecessary removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
A number of attorneys expressed disagreement with the legislation, requesting additional time and consideration to be given to the issue. A uniform state ICWA is already being worked on, according to Scott Nehrbass, a partner at the Foulston Siefkin law firm and a member of the Cherokee Nation.
“Kansas should not go out on a limb and get out ahead of these efforts,” Nehrbass stated. “Let the legal experts first do their work and come up with a well-considered and thoroughly vetted piece of uniform legislation for our legislators to adopt, before adding a Kansas state law to the federal ICWA statute and regulations that already occupy this field. We need to avoid conflict with the existing federal ICWA statute, regulations, and case law and not create uncertainty in the law.”
