Adoption Controversy

* Re the child custody issue of 19-month-old twins, June 15-16: This case may find public opinion resting unfavorably on the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A predominant argument in all this is that the “interests of the children are not being considered.” Such popular jargon dismisses the importance of being with one’s family/culture of origin, especially one with a worldview that values its members as special and crucial to the whole.

With the infants but 3 months old, the pre-adoptive parents--understandably distressed--missed the spirit and denied the letter of the law, while allowing precious time to pass. Does more fighting in the courts serve the children?

The attempt to discredit the family of origin is exactly what the law seeks to circumvent: A presumption that we can be better caretakers for the children of social injustices--injustices we’d rather not be accountable for. Unfortunately, millions of children in this country live in horrible circumstances with little done to affect the hand they’re dealt. If we really care, why not tackle the bigger issues, rather than turning isolated cases into a Trojan-horse bandwagon that disguises our cultural chauvinism?

LORRAINE CARPINELLI

Fountain Valley

* Two important points:

* The girls are only 1/32 Indian. At what point does one stop being Indian? For purposes of scholarships to colleges the cutoff point is 1/16. Shouldn’t it be the same for adoptions?

* The biological paternal grandmother is the one who claims that one of her grandparents was an Indian. Doesn’t there have to be some sort of proof or can anyone claim to have Indian ancestors to get laws that are favorable to Indians to apply to them?

I think that the children should stay with their adoptive parents.

JUDY HERBST

Beverly Hills

* “Custody Case Tests Indian Law,” June 7:

Baby Jessica, Baby Richard, and now Babies Bridget and Lucy have a troubling common denominator. In each case, a birth parent lied when planning the baby’s adoption. Because Baby Jessica’s birth mother lied about the identity of the birth father, the wrong man consented to the adoption and the actual birth father’s parental rights were never terminated. And because Baby Richard’s birth mother lied to the birth father about the baby’s supposed demise, this birth father’s rights were also never properly terminated. And because the birth father of Babies Bridget and Lucy lied about his Native American heritage, the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act was improperly disregarded.

Since I am the proud parent of four wonderful children, two adopted and two non-adopted, I know that families formed by adoption are every bit as genuine as families formed from shared genes. And since I shamefully acknowledge my European ancestors’ virtual decimation of this country’s indigenous people, I appreciate a tribe’s insistence on keeping its youngest generation of Native Americans intact. But since I have also been raised in a culture which mandates truth-telling, I cannot understand a court’s capitulation to someone who lies when the truth is required but tells the truth when a different outcome is desired.

LYNN F. KESSLER

Executive Director

Adoption Research Center

Sherman Oaks

* Your article asks which is more important: bonding or heritage? I am an adult adoptee. My biological heritage is Native American of the Lakota (Sioux) tribe. I spent my 36 years between well-meaning white adoptive parents, many group homes, mental hospitals and jails and prisons. I was a drug user since age 8.

Despite my high IQ, classic “adoption syndrome behavior” has labeled me a “mental case” and enables me to stay out of prison and on the streets. In or out of institutions, my existence is at taxpayer expense, which adoption was devised to save.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) and Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) would be better advised to repeal adoption secrecy statutes that permit falsified, sealed birth records, rather than try to further amend bad law.

NOAH STONE

Palm Desert