Convicted sex offender gets sole custody with help from Native American law
The Indian Child Welfare Act may be facilitating abusers getting custody on tribal land.
Cari Esparza is living every parent’s nightmare.
Her daughter is in the exclusive and sole custody to a registered sex offender.
That’s not my opinion, but this is the 2015 order of a Cook County, Illinois, Judge.
That order was signed on September 28, 2015, by Cook County Circuit Judge Pamela Loza.
Judge Loza had good reason to issue this order. That’s because in the early 1990s, Cari’s ex-boyfriend- and the father of her daughter born in 2006- had been convicted of molesting a family member. Here is part of a police report.
Her ex-boyfriend was also separately charged in 1990 and later convicted of touching a babysitter inappropriately.
Cari’s ex-boyfriend is Craig Lewis, and he did not respond to a voicemail on his cell phone.
Cari told me that Craig began acting strangely shortly after her daughter was born, claiming she had held him down and got pregnant by force because she was obsessed with him.
“I learned later these sorts of accusations are common among child molesters,” Cari told me.
A lawyer friend told her to check his criminal record, and that’s when she discovered he was a registered sex offender.
Cari told me she cut off all contact for several years before making a mistake which still haunts her.
She gave Lewis another shot, believing he’d changed- they never change.
She got in contact with Lewis in 2014; after getting that court order, she decided to live with Lewis in 2016.
Cari told me she thought that the Cook County Court Order would protect her should anything go wrong.
Lewis is of Native American heritage and living at the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC).
Child welfare cases involving Native American children are governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
The act was supposed to give autonomy to Native American tribes to handle child welfare cases, but like many laws, it has been perverted.
One critic is the Goldwater Institute, here is part of what they said on their website, “The Constitution guarantees equal protection to all Americans. But state and federal law denies equal protection for children of Native American ancestry. Under the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), these vulnerable kids are subjected to a separate, less-protective set of laws solely because of their race—laws that make it harder to protect them from abuse and neglect and virtually impossible to find them loving, permanent adoptive homes. The Goldwater Institute is fighting in courts nationwide to ensure that Indian children have the same constitutional protections afforded their peers of other races.”
Cari wrote this in a draft letter to the editor.
This law creates TWO separate, but NOT equal, court systems- tribal and non-tribal.
This law creates TWO separate, but NOT equal, child welfare systems- tribal and non-tribal.
In a tribal court, you WILL be asked your race. The law differs depending upon your race.
The basis for this is to “keep Native American families intact”, and to “honor their culture.
Cari told me that all it took was an allegation made to GRIC social services, and the tribal court system took over.
The allegation was that Lewis’ other son- with another woman- had touched their daughter inappropriately.
Cari was accused of neglect for failing to protect her. With the allegation in hand, the tribal court took over; the tribal court acted like a kangaroo court.
Cari told me that as an outsider she never had a chance.
The tribal social services were granted custody; with that in hand, Cari told me that Craig convinced all necessary parties that she had stolen their daughter from him and filled her with lies.
I reached out to tribal social services attorney, Curtis Slatina, who has been on the case; he did not respond to an email for comment.
The GRIC Tribal Chief is Stephen Roe Lewis; he did not respond to an email for comment.
The court administrator for GRIC courts is Sandra McCue, and she did not respond to an email for comment.
In September 2021, Lewis was granted sole custody. Here is part of an email Cari received from the tribal court.
Effective as of 09/21/2021, Mr. Craig Lewis was granted custody of {their daughter} and Tribal Social Services will no longer be involved in any educational matters regarding {their daughter}. Mr. Lewis has full decision making regarding {their daughter}, thus I will not be involved in future IEP meetings involving {their daughter}. Best wishes to all.
The Court Order will be forwarded to the school once obtained. Thank you and it was a pleasure working with you all.
Cari told me that her daughter has spent about six months in 2022 in a psych ward and the actions taken run counter to recommendations made by doctors on the reservation. Below is part of the report.
The pattern of incest in {Craig’s} family is very concerning. In 1989 {Craig Lewis} was charged with second degree sexual assault after having intercourse with his sister while she was sleeping. In 1990 he was charged with second degree sexual assault of a babysitter after rubbing her breasts and pubic area while she was sleeping on the sofa. Craig’s son, Jeremy, has allegedly sexually abused {Cari’s daughter}. It would be very dangerous to assume that because Craig has no recent arrests or convictions for sexual crimes that he is not at risk for re-offending. It is also possible that he has re-offended, but it has not been discovered.
None of it matters; right now, the tribe views Cari as the unfit parent and has blocked all access.
There is an upcoming US Supreme Court case which may change all this. In fact, Cari told me she added her case to an Amicus brief filed in the case.
The case is Brackeen versus Haaland, and the US Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the law. Here is part of an explainer from the Cornell Law website.
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee and contravenes anticommandeering principles rooted in the Tenth Amendment. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, argues that ICWA’s classification of “Indian child” is constitutional because the classification is political and tied to Congress’s “unique obligation” to Indian tribes. Haaland further contends that Congress has the power to regulate Indian child placement preferences under the Indian Commerce Clause. Chad Everet Brackeen asserts that ICWA’s classification of “Indian child” is race-based and violates the Equal Protection Clause. Brackeen also asserts that ICWA’s placement preferences exceed Congress’s authority by forcing state agencies to carry out federal laws. The outcome of this case has important implications for Indian children’s interests, tribal interests, and state sovereignty regarding the adoption proceedings of Indian children.
Cari told me that ICWA enjoys widespread support because little is known about its effects by the public at large while the tribes provide significant support. Here is part of their spin from the website of the Native American Rights Fund.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a 43-year-old federal law that protects the well-being and best interests of Indian children and families. ICWA does this by upholding family integrity and stability and by keeping Indian children connected to their community and culture. ICWA also reaffirms the inherent rights of tribal nations to be involved in child welfare matters involving their citizens.
For decades, ICWA has been recognized by child welfare experts as the gold standard in child welfare practice, and the law has helped tens of thousands of Indian children and families find fairness and healing in state child welfare systems. In the past several years, anti-tribal interests have launched a series of legal challenges against ICWA, with the goal of broadly undermining tribal sovereignty. The most prominent case and challenge to ICWA is Haaland v. Brackeen (formerly Brackeen v. Zinke and Brackeen v. Bernardt).
She told me there is a silent epidemic of vulnerable children being placed with abusers who are of Native American descent using this law.
Here is more from her unpublished letter to the editor.
On October 10, 2017, attorneys for the Thomas More Society sued the state of Minnesota on the behalf of 2 nontribal member parents- Michelle Steinhoff and James Nguyen.
In Ms. Michelle Steinhoff’s case, the tribal member father had a conviction for felony child abuse.
The tribal court falsely accused her of child abuse or child neglect and gave her son to the father.
Like myself, she had raised him alone- and like myself, she had sole custody. In Mr. Nguyen’s case, the tribal member mother that was given custody had been a drug addict for most of the child’s life.
Like myself, Mr. Nguyen had sole custody. Tribal courts do interfere with visitation for non-tribal members- and with their parental rights. The Indian Child Welfare Act allows this.
Wow