Grandfather forced to give up child to U.S. couple

Page 12

A protracted and emotional custody dispute centering on a four-year-old child waged by the boy's maternal Native grandfather and his adoptive non-Native American grandparents finally played itself out last week in Winnipeg as the toddler was handed over to be taken to the United States.

For the boy's grandfather, known simply as Buddy, the transfer was a devastating blow in his year-long battle to keep the child.

"It was a terribly sad day for me," he said. "Our family has been ripped apart by this. I am all he has known for nearly four years and now he has been taken from a community that loves him and considers him as their own."

The thirty-something Sagkeeng First Nation man started his fight in the British Columbia courts to gain permanent custody of the boy who has been raised by him for the last three-and-a-half-years, and is the product of a Native mother and an African-American father.

Losing the first case, the determined Cree grandfather subsequently appealed to the province's court of appeal where he won custody. However the American couple appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The boy's fate was further complicated by the fact that his mother, along with her sister, had been adopted by the U.S. couple.

The subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that the boy, who had been living with his grandfather, first in British Columbia and then later on a reserve in Manitoba, should be turned over, has been vigorously challenged by representatives of First Nations organizations across the country, including Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine, who called for an end to Native child-grabs.

"I am deeply concerned about this case and about the fact that one our children is again being removed from his own community and taken away from his own people," said Fontaine.

The national chief reiterated that he would be asking Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart to intervene in the case and press for a ministerial order to return the child until a procedural appeal of the Supreme Court decision is settled.

For Buddy, the fight to retain his grandson continued right to the last minute as his lawyer argued unsuccessfully to have the original British Columbia judge in the custody case, Justice Robert Bauman, delay having to turn over the boy.

A week earlier the American adoptive grandparents had illegally taken the child back with them to the United States during a weekend visit in Winnipeg, which had been arranged to simply prepare the wide-eyed toddler for his eventual move.

The couple later claimed they felt intimidated and threatened by the Natives, singling out MLA Eric Robinson, a northern Cree who was worked tirelessly to have the boy remain with his Native grandfather

After the boy failed to be returned to his Native grandfather at the appointed hour, a furry of calls between Buddy's lawyer and the counsel for the U.S. couple forced the boy's return.

There was growing hope by those supporting the boy's grandfather that the U.S. couple's actions would contravene Bauman's ruling that the transition of the boy's hand over to the U.S. couple be a gradual and non-detrimental process and would buoy attempts by the grandfather to keep the child.

Those attempts include a claim by the grandfather's home First Nation, which received intervenor status during the original custody trial, that they had not received proper legal notification on the appeal to Canada's top court.

However, Bauman ruled that the intense media scrutiny of the case and the insistence by First Nations that their children not be turned over to non-Native families were harming the well-being of the child.

The ruling by Bauman has outraged a group of Elders from Sagkeeng who have rejected the court's claim to jurisdiction in the matter.

"Canadian laws are for Canadians," said Elder John Courchene. "They're not for people like this Ojibway kid."

Elder Peter Kinew blasted the courts for failing to respect Ojibway lws and customs. He noted that if the community was to assert its inherent right to self determination, the full weight of the police and government child welfare agencies would be brought to impose their will on First Nations people.

"It's not right. We hear the government and the courts talk about Aboriginal rights and yet, in actuality, as this case proves, they don't really exist.

While many First Nations people have urged the grandfather to retain the child - some First Nations have gone so far as to offer to hide the child - the boy's grandfather maintained his commitment to obeying the court order in order to save the child from any detrimental emotional effects.

The group of Elders also slammed Fontaine, the AFN and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs for acting too late in the case and not being present at the 11th-hour press-conference.

"Where were our political leaders when this boy, his grandfather and the community needed them most?" asked Kinew.

Even MLA Eric Robinson conceded that First Nations political groups should have done more from the outset of the case and should have pressed for intervenor status at the original court case as well.

"This is a tremendously important issue and as Aboriginal people we have to stop the continuing removal of Native children from their own culture and identity," he said.

"This case was the opportunity for First Nations to draw the line in the sand, but we failed to act soon enough and now it's too late."