Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl - US Supreme Court Focuses on Indian Child Welfare Act

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is a case that has caught the attention of the American public.  The case arose when a woman from Oklahoma agreed to allow a South Carolina couple to attempt to adopt her newborn daughter.  The remaining facts surrounding the case have continued to be an area of contention.  One characterization of the facts is as follows:

"... the baby's biological father disclaimed any interest in raising the child.  The biological father was estranged from the biological mother and provided no support during the mother's pregnancy, so the couple would normally not have needed his consent to adopt the child.  However, when he learned of the planned adoption, he objected.  And because he is a registered member of an Indian tribe, the lower courts ruled that a federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), barred the adoption." 

However, the Native American community provides a very different characterization of the facts, highlighting the fact that the biological father is a member of the Cherokee Nation and an Iraq war veteran who was deployed during much of the period of the dispute.  Further, the Native American community focuses on the conduct of the attorneys of the adoptive parents. While the attorneys did provide notice of the adoption to the tribe, there were admittedly errors in the notice.  It is contended that had there not been errors in the notice, the adoptive parents would never have received permission to remove the child from Oklahoma to South Carolina. 

The differing characterizations of the facts are certainly evident in the filings in the case, whcih are linked from the SCOTUS Blog post here. 

One commentator summarized the case, "The Court had before it two competing interpretations of the ICWA:  the more expansive version, advocated by the biological father, argued essentially tht ICWA applies whenever a court is considering whether to terminate parental rights of an Indian parent; the competing interpretation, advanced by the adoptive parents, argues that ICWA's coverage is limited to the kinds of cases that Congress most likely had in mind when it passed ICWA - namely, those in which social workers and other government officials are seeking to remove Indian children from an existing Indian family.  In deciding the case the majority, in this 5-4 decision, accepted the latter interpretation.

Notwithstanding the decision, there remains some uncertainty regarding what will now happen in regards to custody over the child.

For additional information on ICWA, use the Law Library catalog to locate resources.

(This entry was originally written and posted by Darla Jackson)