Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Why It's NOT About American Indian Rights

By Chris Hoenig


Lost in the maze of landmark Supreme Court decisions this week (affirmative action on Monday, voting rights on Tuesday, same-gender marriage on Wednesday) was a case that didn’t include anyone’s name: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. In it, the justices ruled by a 5-to-4 margin to return a young girl to her adoptive parents in South Carolina, dismissing the legal claim of her biological father, who is a member of the Cherokee Nation.

The case centered on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed in 1978 to prevent American Indian children from being taken from their homes and adopted by non-American Indian families. The claim by the biological father relies on generations of ancestry—the baby girl is 3/256ths Cherokee—in asking the court to apply the law and keep the girl with her father.

But the majority justices did not see this as a case of American Indian rights, but rather parental rights at large. The biological father had abandoned the baby’s mother during pregnancy, did not follow state guidelines for legal recognition as a parent (he had, in fact, renounced his custodial rights) and made no claim for parental status until the girl’s adoption was being finalized. Rather, the biological father had actually signed off on the adoption—he claimed due to a misunderstanding—which he would not have had to do if he wasn’t an American Indian.

In the opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s majority found that a noncustodial biological father with no legal parental rights (the court found that his claims to legal parental rights were unjustified) was trying to assert protections that the law afforded to custodial American Indian parents. “It would be absurd to think that Congress enacted a provision that permits termination of a custodial parent’s rights, while simultaneously prohibiting termination of a noncustodial parent’s rights,” the opinion states. “If the statute draws any distinction between custodial and noncustodial parents, that distinction surely does not provide greater protection for noncustodial parents.”

Further, the justices ruled that the purpose of the law was to prevent the unlawful breakup of American Indian families, but in this case, the “family” was not in existence to break up. “When an Indian parent abandons an Indian child prior to birth and that child has never been in the Indian parent’s legal or physical custody, there is no ‘relationship’ that would be ‘discontinu[ed]’—and no ‘effective entity’ that would be ‘end[ed]’—by the termination of the Indian parent’s rights.

“In such a situation, the ‘breakup of the Indian family’ has long since occurred.”

One of the men behind the law disagrees.

“It’s an attack on tribal sovereignty through the children. I can’t believe they did this,” retired Senator James Abourezk (D., S.D.) said.

Latest News

COVID entrepreneur

Explosive New Growth in Small Businesses Due to COVID-19; America’s Police Force is Not Becoming More Diverse Despite BLM Movement; the Best and Worst Performing States in the 2020 Census; and More

Even with incredible nationwide unemployment rates, the creation of new small and diverse businesses has exploded due to COVID-19. Finally some news coming out of our pandemic: The Philadelphia Tribune reports that as bars and restaurants closed and stay-at-home orders were put into place earlier in 2020 to help fight…

Justice for Breonna not served; The essential rule of politics; Teen serves two months in jail for not doing homework; and More

Justice for Breonna not served as grand jury indicted officer who shot her with wanton endangerment — but not murder. “Outrageous and offensive.” Those were  by attorney to the family, Ben Crump to describe the grand jury’s decision in the March 13 fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor. While…

IBM, EEOC, age

EEOC Unearths Years of Intentional Age Discrimination within IBM

After a long investigation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revealed that IBM leaders had directed managers to replace older workers with younger ones. Between 2013 and 2018, nearly 86% of those considered for layoffs within the organization were older employees over the age of 40. The investigation showed…

Breathe March in Globe Park, New York, USA - 12 Sep 2020

Cities under attack from the Justice Department; Louisville bracing for the Breonna Taylor murder charge; Twitter reveals its racist side; and More

Justice department attacks three U.S. cities, declaring them anarchist zones — despite most of the protests that took place in each city being peaceful marches in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. In a move designed to pull federal funding from New York City, Seattle and Portland, OR, the…

ginsburg, supreme, court

The Lasting Legacy of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Plus the Four Biggest Issues Currently at Stake Following Her Death

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the nation’s highest court for 27 years, passed away Friday, Sept. 18 at the age 87. “As the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed…

Abbott Receives CE Mark for Next-Generation Mitraclip Heart Valve Repair Device to Treat Mitral

Originally posted on Abbott.com – CE Mark for MitraClip G4 offers physicians an innovative next-generation system with more options for mitral valve repair using proven clip-based technology – MitraClip is a first-of-its-kind transcatheter mitral valve therapy, now on its fourth generation, improving further on MitraClip’s history as a safe and…

Cox Crews Mobilized to Reconnect Gulf Coast

Originally published on Cox.com Cox has mobilized its employees with support from outside of the Gulf Coast area to begin assessing damage and restoring service outages caused by Hurricane Sally. In times like this, we understand it is important to stay connected and we want our services to help you…