Court sides with adoptive parents in test of Native American custody rights

 

McClatchy Washington Bureau

A 27-month-old girl who lived with adoptive parents in South Carolina since her birth was handed over to a biological father she had never met in 2011.

Now, 18 months later, a Supreme Court decision will likely send her back to the adoptive parents.

The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law granting extra protections to Native American parents, did not protect the father’s right to his biological child in this case.

The baby was conceived while her parents were still engaged, but her non-Native American mother broke off the engagement before she was born. When the mother asked the Native American father if he would rather pay child support or give up his rights to the child, he replied that he would relinquish his rights.

The father changed his mind after learning the mother had given the baby up for adoption to a couple in South Carolina; he hired a lawyer and sued for custody from the non-Native American couple.

A lower court granted him custody under a federal law called the Indian Child Welfare Act. If he had not been Native American, the law clearly states he would have no right to the child, who was 1.2 percent Cherokee.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed that decision, ruling that the law’s language on protecting parents’ “continued custody of the child” refers to a parent already having custody who has that custody taken away.

“(The law) is inapplicable when, as here, the parent abandoned the Indian child before birth and never had custody of the child,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Congress enacted the law in 1978 after a study revealed that 25 percent to 35 percent of Native American children were being separated from their homes in favor of foster or adoptive care, mostly because of culturally insensitive child welfare laws. The law barred the termination of Native American parents’ rights to their children unless it could be proven that significant harm to the child could result from the parents’ continued custody.

The law also gives preference to Native American adoptive couples over non-Native American couples. The court said that since no eligible Native American candidates sought to adopt the girl, the law did not bar the couple from adopting the child.

While Native American interest groups expressed disappointment for the member of their community, many said they were glad the court had at least chosen to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act.

“Today’s decision sends a clear message that there is no question of (the act’s) role as the most important law to protect native children and families,” said Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians. “The decision also affirms congressional authority to protect Indian children.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that she would uphold the lower court’s ruling for the biological father’s custody.

“The majority . . . ignores Congress’ purpose in order to rectify a perceived wrong that, while heartbreaking at the time, was a correct application of federal law and that in any case cannot be undone,” she wrote. “It can be said with certainty that the anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today’s decision.”

The case resulted in an odd divide among the justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer joining Alito in the majority. Justices Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.

Email: kirby@mcclatchydc.com

Read more Politics Wires stories from the Miami Herald

  • 2 long-time friends discuss the First Amendment

    The legality of government surveillance is likely to come before the Supreme Court someday, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appear less than thrilled at the prospect.

  • Attorney general rejects wording of alcohol item

    The Arkansas attorney general's office has rejected the wording of a ballot proposal that would make alcohol sales legal in all 75 of the state's counties.

  • Iowa Democrats consider expanding caucus access

    Iowa Democrats are looking to expand access to the state's presidential caucuses to people who are typically unable to attend them, a tricky task with these local political meetings that rely on the in-person interplay of party activists.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category