'Native children belong in Native communities': tribes decry New Mexico drug-exposed newborn rule
Source: The Guardian
Sun 21 Jun 2026 11.00 EDT
Last modified on Sun 21 Jun 2026 11.01 EDT
One morning early last July, Micha Bitsinnie arrived at work to an onslaught of messages from confused families. New Mexicos governor Michelle Lujan Grisham had just issued a directive mandating the states child welfare department seek custody of all newborns who had been exposed to drugs and alcohol in utero. Some parents wondered whether medications that they were taking for addiction recovery, such as methadone, would flag their cases. Healthcare providers wondered whether the fentanyl in an epidural counted as a drug exposure.
Bitsinnie supports families as a policy manager at the non-profit organization Bold Futures, which advocates for policies that keep families together. Research shows that children prenatally exposed to substances do best when they can remain in their families and receive supportive services to treat any withdrawal symptoms they experience.
Bitsinnie is also a member of the Navajo nation, and she immediately noticed that the new directive appeared to be in tension with laws protecting the sovereignty of New Mexicos Native tribes. Those laws stipulate that tribes must be immediately notified about a child welfare case involving a Native child so that they can take jurisdiction of cases involving their citizens. How are we notifying families, tribes, nations, pueblos? she wondered
The directive erodes important procedural safeguards for Indian families, the ACLU wrote in an emergency petition it filed with New Mexicos supreme court last month, noting that it makes no reference to specific procedures and safeguards for Indian children and families established in state and federal law. Nine tribes signed on to the lawsuit. Although the state supreme court declined to pause the governors mandate in early June, it will allow arguments on the case to proceed.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/21/new-mexico-policies-families
Link to ACLU PRESS RELEASE - ACLU, Joined by State Legislators, Asks NM Supreme Court to Halt CYFD Directive Separating Newborns from Their Families
pat_k
(14,482 posts)Negative consequences.
Who the hell lobbied for this?
Did some event prompt it?
Ilikepurple
(809 posts)Almost a half century later, tribes still find themselves fighting for the jurisdiction over their member childrens welfare that ICWA established. Im not exactly happy with the trend of using executive orders to frustrate legislations original intent. The governor may see this as a way to protect Indian children, but if this case gets to the US Supreme Court, I shudder at what provisions of ICWA itll deem no longer necessary as all of the issues unique to Indian Country have disappeared (sarcasm).
In addition, Im not a child welfare expert, but simplistic directives that treat a broad range of cases as fundamentally the same often create a brand new set of injustices.
pat_k
(14,482 posts)TygrBright
(21,409 posts)When this was first discussed, I thought it would be only a matter of (not very much!) time before the sovereign nations went to court on this. But given how many First Nations people live outside their nations' jurisdiction, it's a smart move to bring the ACLU in on it.
Keep in mind, this was not limited to or specific to First Nations people. It is a statewide, all people in New Mexico order, and there are plenty of problems with poverty and addiction in all communities here.
I think Grisham's intent was kindly, and the problem had been escalating because attempts to assist pregnant women with opioid and benzo and alcohol addictions to get their newborns treated quickly had been failing miserably - too many were leaving hospitals and birthing centers with their newborns and not responding to attempts to help. It had resulted in some infant deaths and high profile cases that caused a lot of "why isn't the State doing something about this" backlash.
But like a lot of helpful ideas here, it was something that might have worked well somewhere else with resources available and a different kind of cultural mix. Not in New Mexico. It was only a matter of time.
I do hope they manage to sort something out with the sovereign nations. They should have the primary say in how cases involving their people are handled.
sadly,
Bright