'Native children belong in Native communities': tribes decry New Mexico drug-exposed newborn rule

[BumRushDaShow]

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 Mexico’s governor Michelle Lujan Grisham had just issued a directive mandating the state’s 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 Mexico’s 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 Mexico’s 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 governor’s 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]

1. Seeking custody as a universal response strikes me as a horrible policy with consequences that span generations.

Negative consequences.

Who the hell lobbied for this?

Did some event prompt it?

[Ilikepurple]

2. Other issues aside it seems states are still having issues complying with the Indian Child Welfare Act

Almost a half century later, tribes still find themselves fighting for the jurisdiction over their member children’s welfare that ICWA established. I’m not exactly happy with the trend of using executive orders to frustrate legislation’s 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 it’ll deem no longer necessary as all of the issues unique to Indian Country have disappeared (sarcasm).

In addition, I’m 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]

3. I share your concerns about the six black-robed traitors.

[TygrBright]

4. I saw this coming...

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

[2naSalit]

5. Sadly...

It doesn't work in Idaho, Montana or the Dakotas either. Been a legal battle for a long time.