So much for the melting pot

In yet another example of a 'well-intentioned' law having unintended consequences, A Utah couple was recently forced to return a baby they had adopted. This baby was born with drugs in its system, to a mother who had already had other children removed from her home. This adoptive couple invested their time and money to nurse this child back to health, but because this child happened to be of American Indian descent, they were forced to return him under a 1978 law, the 'Indian Child Welfare Act', when the biological mother changed her mind about the adoption.

I wonder, when laws such as this are written, does ANYONE take the time to consider all the possible ramifications? This law was ostensibly written to protect American Indian children and their heritage. It made adoption of Native American children by 'non native' people much more difficult by erecting significant barriers to such an adoption.

So my question is, Even though this child will have the 'advantage' of being raised with his 'people', will this child be better off in the long run, since he has been taken from the only real parents he has known to be placed in an foster home with American Indian parents, and will eventually be returned to the very person whose behavior could have cost him his life?

The question has to be asked as well, if the situation was reversed, and a Caucasian baby was taken from its adoptive parents who happened to be of another race, simply so it could be with its 'kind', would it not be decried as racism, and condemned loudly by the media?

Sometimes, the government and its 'one size fits all' laws do not know best....