CNN’s In Session is currently broadcasting a trial from Utah involving the tragic death of an Indian child. This broadcast comes at a time when I’m editing my manuscript, Chalk Ghost—and right after I deleted a long passage from it on the way our laws treat Indian mothers. I deleted the passage for two reasons, one of which I now must revisit: 1) I was afraid it was too preachy, and 2) I was afraid I was describing something that was no longer true.

Alas, Indian mothers seem to be no better off in 2010 than they were when my father was a child of an Indian mother about 80 years ago.

Idaho v Aragon

On Christmas Day, a man named Robert Aragon was caught in a blizzard near Shoshone, Idaho, with his two children while driving them to see their Indian mother, JoLeta Jenks (I don’t know what her tribal affiliation is, but there are several reservations in Idaho). The children left the vehicle and tried to walk nine miles, while their father remained in it. Eventually, the girl’s body was found frozen to death on the side of the road; the boy was found in a wayside rest stop, hypothermic but alive.

From her testimony, it is clear that Ms. Jenks is a bright woman; from his actions it’s equally clear Mr. Aragon is not bright (even his employer testified that he isn’t the brightest bulb). But despite her intelligence, Ms. Jenks was unable to make a living and became homeless several years after she split up with Mr. Aragon, the defendat. Mr. Aragon, despite his lack of intelligence, was apparently able to make a good enough living that he was able to provide the two children with a home in which they had separate bedrooms, TVs, and were well fed—according to Ms. Jenks. That is why—the only reason why—she sent them to live away from her.

Idaho is not one of the states covered by Public Law 280: this means the state does not have complete authority in cases involving Indian families. If the father had been an Indian, tribal law might have taken control. Perhaps the tribe would have been able to help Ms. Jenks provide her children with a home. However, Mr. Aragon is white, and therefore, I suppose, state law governs the situation—for all the good it did any of them.

The man did neglect and harm the children by letting them leave the vehicle in a blizzard; for that I suppose he should be punished, even though Ms. Jenks acknowledges that all he was guilty of was making a “bad decision.” (I’m not sure any good could have come of sending this man to prison, though; his son is still in his custody, and it isn’t clear that he has any other home to go to. What could the state do? Put him in foster care?)

Sidebar: The In Session commentators doesn't understand the not guilty verdict (as is often the case). They found him not guilty of crimes; they did not find him to be without blame, and they knew that the only person who would suffer if his father was convicted was his son. Frankly, what was the state of Idaho thinking?

What I don’t understand is why the Bureau of Indian Affairs isn’t also on trial here (any more than I understand why the Department of the Interior thinks that paying “Indian Country” $3 billion in some sort of “reparations” for the mismanagement of the BIA will do anything to help women like Ms. Jenks). (See Corbell v Salazar Settlement.)

The federal government is responsible for the plight in which most Indian mothers and Indian children find themselves today.