Adoption Ceremonies

[Sizzle Flambé]

so what does this have to do with traditional ceremonies of adoption by tribal people?
Government has little knowledge of our ceremonies such as Hunka

It has to do with some consequences of adoption by tribal people, in Canada, unlike in the USA.

[Cetan]

The adoption ceremony this thread is about is a traditional ceremony, there is no paperwork or any sort of legal documentation involved. It is done in front of members of the family and community and is not something done lightly. Back in the day some tribes would allow adopted family members (and also spouses who married into the tribe) to become enrolled members however the ID card would say 0/4 blood quantum.  Unfortunately there are still blood quantum enrolled tribal members who also sell ceremonies.

[earthw7]

the legal adoption have nothing to do with ceremomial adoptions.

[Sizzle Flambé]

The adoption ceremony this thread is about is a traditional ceremony,...

the legal adoption have nothing to do with ceremonial adoptions.

But under Canadian law, either a legal adoption or a "custom adoption" (i.e. according to the custom of the tribe/nation) can be the basis for membership in that tribe/nation, and for receiving a "Certificate of Indian Status".

This is touched upon in Buffalo v Canada 2005, the court case MP linked earlier, although the case itself involved a legal adoption.

[Superdog]

It may be i don't have all the facts , but it seems you are spreading incorrect information. I don't know why.

MP, the above passages I cut-and-pasted with links are from <http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/>, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the federal government department in charge of these issues. You can click those links to see that I didn't alter a word. If you don't consider that a "credible website", I can't help you. Why you choose to accuse me of dishonesty for posting these direct quotes and links, I don't know, but it makes saying anything else to you pointless.

With regard to your cited court case, you quote paragraph 6 (on page 3) as though it settled the case. But read paragraphs 49 (on page 9) through 62 (on page 11), which cite the Adult Adoption Act. The court expressly noted that "child" (of a parent) does not always mean "minor", it can (and does in the Adult Adoption Act) include adult offspring and adoptees; and that Parliament could have but did not specify "minor child" in the Indian Act.

[61] Finally, it should also be noted that the Noël case involved an adult adoption in the province of Quebec. There appeared to be no dispute as to the entitlement of an adult adoptee to be added to a Band List but only whether a fraud had been perpetrated in the adoption procedure.

In this case the parents who were adopting (Percy and Betty Johnson) had to prove that they raised Boczek (the adoptee) from the time before his majority status.  The status of adoption of a minor remains applicable as they granted a de facto adoption based on the fact that the parents raised him from before the age of 18 until he was able to take care of himself.

When it comes to adult adoptees and the Indian Act in Canada...individuals still have to prove they were raised by status Indians as minors.

I think you've misread a lot Sizzle.  I gotta agree with Moma Porcupine on this one, but I will grant you that it is a government program with lots of holes in it and because of previous mistakes in older versions of the Indian Act it is confusing and definitely not a perfect system....however I don't see the ability of new agers or frauds to take advantage of it by being "adopted" into a tribe and the mistakes of the Indian Act tend to be more exlusive rather than inclusive.  It's just not there.....it's pretty clear from the links you and MP posted and especially in the court case posted that adult adoptees have to prove they were raised as minors by status Indians to be able to receive a Status card.  Custom adoption included.

So, for everyone reading, let's get it clear.  Traditional adoption by a band or by individual members as an adult is NOT a pathway to a Status Card in Canada. 

Superdog

[earthw7]

Thanks Supperdog

[Sizzle Flambé]

When it comes to adult adoptees and the Indian Act in Canada...individuals still have to prove they were raised by status Indians as minors.

Already addressed in the latter half of reply #43 on the previous page.

[Cetan]

no point in arguing anymore, obviously this sizzle knows more about adoption ceremonies than our residfent full blooded tribal historian Earth7

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

.  

[MattOKC]

I realize a ceremonially-adopted individual has no legal or ceremonial authority. But do the other tribal members SOCIALLY acknowledge the adopted? I mean, is it like in the "old days" when the person is claimed by the people, not just the family, and regarded as a belonging person?

[earthw7]

when you are adopted you have four or more witness so if anyone
ask if you can prove your adoption you give the witness name.
Yes, we acknowledge our relatives once they are adopted and
address them as such. Uncle./aunt/brother/sister ect...
Everyone in the family will acknowledge the adoption of
course when you do the ceremony you invite all the family
so that they can welcome you.

[Unegv Waya]

Wado, Earthw7, for the real truth about this.  I too have ran across many who say they were adopted into a Sioux family then go on the claim they are now Lakota.  Most of them don't even know that the Dakota and Nakota even exist.  Funny that.

I've only ever met two people who were truly adopted by a Sioux family and they never made any claims about anything.  What you posted is exactly what those two individuals did say as far as what an adoption means and what it doesn't.  That makes two out of the dozens who tried to say something contradictory like how they were taught ceremonies and medicine and other such nonsense.

[flyaway]

I also agree with 2 prvious posts, being adopted into a Lakota family does not give you any rights to do anything. It is not like a "legal" adoption by the court. 

[Yiwah]

This is what I said:
The Lakota/Dakota/Nakota Nations are in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Minnesota, three Canadain States.

Just a minor quibble...

Canada doesn't have states, we have provinces.  I know there are Nakoda in Alberta and Saskatchewan...are there Nakoda elsewhere in Canada?

Sorry for the insert:)

[earthw7]

That is my fault I was probably typing to fast again.
No offense to my relatives the Nakota.