Most people that know me know that I adore Dr. Phil but today, I disagree with him. I know! Crazy, right? But as I watched his show today (10/18/12) I watched people argue over the Indian Child Welfare Act. Parents that weren’t Indian Tribe members adopted children that had very small parts of Indian in them. Some of those parents lost their children due to the Act and Dr. Phil said that it wasn’t in the best interest of those children. I agree that, in those specific circumstances, the children belonged with their adoptive parents.
I was truly upset that Dr. Phil didn’t seem to understand why the Indian Nation fought for children that they didn’t even know existed and took them from their other loving families.
First I want to say that I do understand WHY the law was created. I also believe that that law is equal to the laws in place between nations. If a child was brought to the US by his mother from Cuba and said mother dies (Oh wait! That did happen!) and the child’s father wanted him back, the US, by law must return the child. He did have to be returned, because the boy was a citizen of Cuba. That means that, for better or for worse, Cuba gets to decide who raises the child.
When a little American boy got taken to Venezuela by his mother and then his mother died, his step-father wanted to keep him. After many years of fighting, the US government fighting on the side of the American father, the boy was returned to his American father, because the boy is a US citizen.
There are several cases every year where an American parent takes, often without the other parent’s permission, a child into another country. The US government often will try to help the parent still residing in our country to bring the child home. We even do this state to state.
In this country, one state rules over any child in it’s state. I have personally experienced this with the welfare of my niece and nephew. They needed a safe place to live for a while but the state they live in wouldn’t consider sending them to stay with us because we live in a different state, even though it would have protected them and definitely been in their best interest.
If my child (an American) was stolen and given to a lovely family in Japan and they were fantastic to him and raised him and loved him and gave him a wonderful life for several years, I would still WANT HIM BACK! I wouldn’t care how much they loved him because he is my son and I deserve to raise him myself.
I would feel badly for those other parents but I wouldn’t share him with them. That’s reality. Would he grow up privalaged and happy? Probably but I would still want him back with me.
I say all of this to say, Dr. Phil my be right in what is in the “best interest” of a child but each country is responsible for their own children and therefore they have the “right” to decide how to care for said child. And biological (fit) parents have the right to their own children. Even if one of the parents tried to deny the other parent that right. It’s the law in this country. Plain and simple.
Now tell me what you think…………….