Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Click on the PDF link below for the full version including footnotes.
Introduction
In this case, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) gives a Native parent the right to intervene with the legal adoption of their child by a non-Native parent, even if the Native parent never had custody of their child. The ICWA provides a set of guidelines for handling Native children abuse, neglect, and adoption cases in order to assure stability and security for their tribe, family, and culture. These guidelines are federal requirements for the removal of Native children from their biologically defined homes.
Facts
Baby Girl’s biological mother decided to put her up for adoption, but did not get consent from the father, who had relinquished his parental rights prior to the birth. The Adoptive Couple started the adoption process, which was halted when The Cherokee Nation filed a notice of intervention that said Baby Girl was an “Indian Child” under the ICWA, and the father, a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, was interested in gaining custody of Baby Girl.
Baby Girl’s birth certificate lists her ethnicity as Hispanic instead of Native American because the mother attempted to verify the Native American status of the biological father, but misspelled his name and gave the wrong birthdate, so the Cherokee nation was unable to find any records. Baby Girl’s parents do not live together and the father did not financially support the mother during the pregnancy or the first four months of Baby Girl’s life. After four months, the Adoptive Couple served the biological father papers to formally agree to the adoption, which had already been agreed upon by the biological mother.He responded by initially agreeing to the adoption, but subsequently wanted custody of Baby Girl.
Legal Background
The South Carolina Family Court first heard the dispute on January 4, 2013. It denied the adoption by Adoptive Couple and gave the biological father custody of the daughter he had never met, 27-month-old Baby Girl. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this decision because Baby Girl’s biological father sought custody immediately after being informed of the adoption; therefore, he fit under the “parent” description in the ICWA. The Adoptive Couple did not follow the ICWA in getting the biological father’s consent to adoption before they started the adoption process.
Adoptive Couple argued that the biological father had relinquished his parental rights through a text sent to the mother when she asked him to choose between paying child support or relinquishing his rights. The biological father testified that he thought he was relinquishing his rights only to the mother, not to the Adoptive Couple.
Holding & Reasoning
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision with a 5-4 majority on June 25, 2013. The ICWA states that custody cases involving Indian children prohibit the forced termination of parental rights, unless the child is in serious danger under the custody of the biological parents. The ICWA also protects against breaking up the Indian family if the parents show corrective efforts to keep their child, and gives priority to the Indian child’s adoption to extended family, tribe members, and other Indian families. The Court found that section 1912(f) of the ICWA does not apply because the biological father did not have custody of Baby Girl prior to the attempted adoption. Section 1912(d) was also inapplicable, the Court determined, because the Indian family had already been separated before the birth of Baby Girl when the biological father relinquished his rights, so no parental rights would be taken away.
In addition, the Court concluded that section 1915(a) was irrelevant to the case because no other family had asked to adopt the child. The biological father was not seeking to adopt, he was attempting to retain his parental rights, and as such, is not protected by section 1915(a). Furthermore, the Court noted that the ICWA was intended to protect Indian children from unjustified separation from their families “due to the cultural insensitivity and bias of social workers and state courts.” In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Court feared that giving the biological father custody would set a precedent allowing biological Indian fathers to use the ICWA to defy the biological mother’s decision – thus giving mothers in future cases no choice of seeking the better option for the child. The main goal of custody and adoption cases is to assure that a child is placed in a safe, stable, and caring home; this objective could be defied by unsuitable biological Indian fathers using the ICWA for purposes beyond what the law was originally intended to protect.
Analysis
I partially disagree with the Court’s interpretation of the ICWA. The Court defines the words “continued custody” as custody continuously held in the past. Through this definition, the Court limits these words to a timeframe that was never established by the ICWA (the past). “Continued custody” could also refer to custody continuously held in the future. Under this reading of the ICWA, the father would be entitled to the protections of §1912(f), including the prohibition of termination of parental rights without evidence that the child would suffer if such rights were not revoked. There is no evidence that the child would suffer if the father receives custody, meaning that the protections of §1912(f) prevent the termination of parental rights.
Additionally, the Court invalidates a lot of the protections afforded by the ICWA on technicalities. For example, the Court decides that the biological father is not the “parent” for the purposes of the ICWA, when the Act explicitly defines that he is. The simplified reason why the ICWA was established was to prevent further disproportionate placement of Indian children in non-Indian households, resulting in a cultural genocide. However complicated this case might be, the ICWA should not be disregarded on technicalities, because the case is still concerning an Indian child permanently placed in a non-Indian household, which contributes to cultural genocide. Thinking from the biological father’s perspective, he was denied of his parental right to raise his biological child by the Court, something that is arguably out of their jurisdiction. Although he did relinquish his parental rights prior to the birth of Baby Girl, he is legally allowed to change his mind and assume responsibility for his daughter so long as it is done before the adoption is finalized. This is because he did not relinquish his rights in a written manner before a judge.
The Court’s judgment in holding the biological father accountable for deciding to deny economic support to the biological mother during the pregnancy and the first four months of Baby Girl’s life was appropriate, but that should not make him lose his daughter altogether. It is common for parents of unplanned pregnancies to feel overwhelmed and neglect their child or partner, yet a momentary lapse in judgement usually does not cut them off from their child forever. In this situation, the biological father is stripped of the right to raise his child by the Court solely based on his short-lived actions at the beginning of the baby’s life. The Court seems to disregard the fact that he is fighting for custody, against all odds, proving his interest and commitment to being Baby Girl’s father. Although Adoptive Couple might be great, Baby Girl will still wonder why her biological parents gave her up when the truth is her father did not willingly abandon her. From a moral perspective, the lack of financial support on the father’s part is sadly a common family situation, yet he deserves a second chance because he regretted his decision after less than half a year and tried to make things right by fighting for custody of his daughter. If he had neglected Baby Girl once again in the time that the South Carolina Supreme Court granted him custody, then Adoptive Couple should be granted custody in accordance with § 1912(f). It seems cruel that the South Carolina Supreme Court granted him custody just to have Baby Girl taken from him shortly after by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It is not fair that Baby Girl was separated from the Cherokee Nation because it is her birthright to know where she comes from, and it was clear that they were very interested in keeping Baby Girl. This case overlooked the purpose of the ICWA and set a precedent for less protections regarding the adoption of Indian children.