"[6][a]By 1928 assimilation through the boarding schools was no longer popular with the public, and the Meriam Report condemned the practice of forcibly removing Indian children from their families.

After World War II, the intervention of state social welfare workers into overseeing Indian families resulted in another type of removal.

Indian children were removed from their families when social workers judged the conditions were poor for the child, and placed in foster care or for adoption.

Often the social workers did not understand tribal culture and the role of extended family members in the care of the child.

[10] In many cases, the dominant non-Indian culture justified the removal in order to protect or rescue the children from what they claimed was barbarism on the reservation.

[12][c] Native American tribes increasingly protested against the practice of removing their children and placing them with non-Native families.

[15] In many cases, the children were removed even from families who resided on Indian reservations, where the state government did not have legal jurisdiction.

[22] He ruled that the Mississippi Supreme Court was in error by emphasizing the non-reservation birth of the children, the fact that they never lived on the reservation, and the voluntary relinquishment by the natural parents.

The fact that the parents traveled 200 miles to avoid giving birth on the reservation does not serve to eliminate the tribal court's exclusive jurisdiction.

Stevens believed that the ICWA was intended to apply primarily to the involuntary removal of Indian children from their families and the tribe, and a voluntary action by parents does not have the same characteristics.

[24] Although the Supreme Court was clear that the ICWA was to be applied to adoption cases based on the statute and the accompanying House Report, "by making sure that Indian child welfare determinations are not based on "a white, middle-class standard ..."",[21] state courts created references to an "existing Indian family".

[27] In those cases, courts had held that if the child was not part of an existing Indian family, then the ICWA did not apply, but this exception was not included anywhere in the law.

They also have gained a better understanding of the importance of tribal cultures, and the practice of members of the extended family being integral to a child's support.