And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.I.S.I.S.) writes:
BC COURTS INTERVENE IN CROSS-BORDER CUSTODY BATTLE
Canadian Press, March 17, 1999 by Dene Moore
[S.I.S.I.S. note: The following mainstream news article may contain biased
or distorted information and may be missing pertinent facts and/or context.
It is provided for reference only.]
VANCOUVER (CP) - An aboriginal boy at the centre of a bitter
cross-border custody battle should be turned over to his adoptive American
grandparents, a B.C. Supreme Court judge decided Wednesday. The
four-year-old should be transferred to the Connecticut couple this
Saturday, said Justice Robert Bauman, in part because of media attention on
the case in Winnipeg. "I'm of the view that its in the best interests of
the child to take him out of the spotlight that has been created in
Winnipeg," Bauman said.
The boy's mother and her sister, members of the Swan Lake band of
southern Manitoba, were adopted by the non-native U.S. couple in 1980.
Shortly after the boy was born in 1995 the woman moved to Vancouver to find
her biological family.
The boy was apprehended by Childrens Ministry officials in British
Columbia. He spent time in a foster home before custody was granted to his
biological grandfather. The child has lived with his biological grandfather
since March 1996 - first in British Columbia and now on the southern
Manitoba reserve.
After a long custody battle, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last
month that the boy should be returned to the custody of the U.S. couple.
The native grandfathers lawyer, John Harvie, has filed a motion asking the
Supreme Court to reconsider the decision.
James Martin, another lawyer for the native grandfather, was in B.C.
Supreme Court on Wednesday asking the court to delay a transfer order until
the high court ruled on the motion.
The B.C. court, where the case was first heard, was to establish a
transition plan to hand the boy over to his U.S. grandparents. Bauman said
a transfer to the grandparents, however, would be a "cooling-off period" in
the best interests of the boy.
Harvie said the biological grandfather is disappointed by the B.C.
decision but took the news "with dignity as he has dealt with the situation
all along." He said the native grandfather won't defy the court order.
Last Thursday the U.S. couple left the country with the boy during a
visit. In written affidavits entered into court they said they felt
intimidated by the media attention. When they returned with the boy Friday,
they were met at the airport by a throng of reporters, "constant flashing,
clicking cameras" and a "sea of faces."
The boy has inappropriately become a symbol of the cultural debate
surrounding the adoption of native children, said Bauman, who originally
granted the U.S. adoptive grandparents custody. If the Supreme Court of
Canada eventually overturns the earlier decision granting them custody,
"there would be nothing wrong with the child making a three-week or
four-week visit to his grandparents in Connecticut," he said.
The ruling outraged members of the boy's native family. His aunt, who
was also adopted by the Connecticut family but has since returned to her
biological family, said the judge was wrong. "The (U.S. couple) have only
had contact with him on three occasions since 1996," she said outside the
court. She said the reason her sister brought him to Canada was to be with
his native family.
The boy's mother has said she does not want custody but supports her
biological father's custody application.
Viola Thomas, president of the United Native Nations, said outside court
the ruling is "a violation of the cultural rights of the child." It is a
continuation of the racist policies that have seen so many native children
torn from their families, Thomas said. "There is no doubt in my mind that
system bias... is alive and well," she said.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
CANADA - A COUNTRY FOUNDED AND MAINTAINED UPON INDIGENOUS GENOCIDE
"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy,
in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its destruction, in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
*e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
-- Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
1948, Article 2.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty
P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2
EMAIL : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html
SOVERNET-L is a news-only listserv concerned with indigenous
sovereigntist struggles around the world. To subscribe, send
"subscribe sovernet-l" in the body of an email message to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For more information on sovernet-l, contact S.I.S.I.S.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
