The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday lifted a stay placed on an adoption dispute involving a Cherokee girl that was keeping her with her father and blocking an Order recognizing the adoption by her adoptive parents. After a two-year legal battle, Baby Veronica is reunited with her adoptive family. However, the battle may not be over.
To recap, in 2009, a couple from South Carolina began adoption proceedings for Baby Veronica whose father was a member of the Cherokee Nation and whose mother was predominantly Hispanic. The legal battle began when biological father contested the adoption on the grounds that he was not properly notified in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), which protects Indian tribes and their children. In order for an adoption of an Indian child to proceed, the courts must follow guidelines for parents to waive their parental rights or have them terminated. The biological father contested the adoption by claiming that he was not properly notified in accordance with the ICWA and was successful at the trial court level and on appeal with the state Supreme Court.
As a result, on October 1, 2012, the adoptive couple petitioned the United States Supreme Court for consideration and the matter was heard on April 16, 2013. The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision remanding the case back to the state court of South Carolina for further hearings on these issues. On July 31, 2013, the South Carolina trial court granted the adoption of Baby Veronica to her adoptive family. However, in a twist of fate, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, on August 30, 2013, ruled that Baby Veronica would not immediately be transferred to her adoptive family. After numerous mediation efforts in the last week, no resolution was entered and the Oklahoma Supreme Court dissolved the Court Order that was keeping Baby Veronica with her Cherokee father in Oklahoma.
The primary issues before the United States Supreme Court were:
- whether a non-custodial parent could invoke the ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law and;
- whether the ICWA defines a parent to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. He noted that although provisions of the ICWA were relevant to the case, under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that the biological father would not be able to object to the adoption. Further, he stated that the ICWA did not apply to the case when the parent in question never had custody of the child.
Although several appeals are still pending with regard to finalization of the adoption by the South Carolina court, the adoptive parents will have custody of Baby Veronica while these appeals are pending. Only time will tell whether the child will now enjoy a stable and permanent home.
This dispute raised legal questions as to jurisdictions, tribal sovereignty and federal law meant to protect Native American tribes and their children. We hope that this legal battle will provide clarification, rather than more potential legal arguments. Disputes such as this cannot be resolved with the best interest of the child in mind, since the courts cannot address them quickly and the outcome can require a change of custody.
heARTbeat is a publication of the KingSpry Adoption/ART Law Practice Group. It is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
