Jump to content

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
scotus infobox
m sp
Line 33: Line 33:
|JoinDissent=
|JoinDissent=
|Dissent2=Sotomayor, J.
|Dissent2=Sotomayor, J.
|JoinDissent2=Ginsberg, Kagan, JJ.; Scalia, J. (in part)
|JoinDissent2=Ginsburg, Kagan, JJ.; Scalia, J. (in part)
|LawsApplied={{usc|25|1901|1963}}
|LawsApplied={{usc|25|1901|1963}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 17:22, 25 June 2013

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 16, 2013
Decided June 25, 2013
Full case nameAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, Birth Father, and the Cherokee Nation
Docket no.12-399
Citations570 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Prior398 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550
Holding
Held that § 1912(f) does not apply to a parent who has never had custody of the child, that § 1912(d) only applies when breakup would an existing relationship, and that § 1915(a)'s preferences do not apply when there are no alternative party seeking to adopt the child.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, J., joined by Roberts, CJ., Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ.
ConcurrenceThomas, J.
ConcurrenceBreyer, J.
DissentScalia, J.
DissentSotomayor, J., joined by Ginsburg, Kagan, JJ.; Scalia, J. (in part)
Laws applied
25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 731 S.E.2d 550 (S.C. 2012), was a case in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that a Native American (Indian) child could not be adopted by non-Indian parents without complying with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The court ordered the child returned to her biological father after she had lived with her adoptive parents from birth until 2 years of age.

In 2009, a couple from South Carolina sought to adopt an Indian child from her non-Indian single mother in Oklahoma. The biological father contested the adoption on the grounds that he was not properly notified in accordance with ICWA, and won his cases in trial court and on appeal with the state supreme court. The case has received extensive coverage in the national media, and spurred calls for Congress to review and make amendments to the 1978 law.

On October 1, 2012, the adoptive couple petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case. On January 4, 2013, the court granted certiorari and heard the case on April 16, 2013.[1]

On June 25, 2013, in a legal victory for the adoptive parents, the Supreme Court issued its decision, sending the case back to the state court of South Carolina.[2]

Background

Indian Child Welfare Act

Main article: Indian Child Welfare Act

The Indian Child Welfare Act[3] (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to protect Indian tribes and their children.[4] Tribal nations had been losing as many as 25 to 35 percent of their children to removal from their homes, and consequently from their tribal culture. These children were frequently placed in Native American boarding schools or in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes.[5] Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs showed that in some cases, the per capita rate of Indian children in foster care was nearly 16 times higher than the rate for non-Indians.[6] In some cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) paid the states to remove Indian children and to place them with non-Indian families and religious groups.[7] If Indian children had continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. Congress recognized this, and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child.[8] One of the factors in this judgment was that, because of the differences in culture, what was in the best interest of a non-Indian child were not necessarily what was in the best interest of an Indian child, especially due to the influence of extended families and tribal relationships.[9]

ICWA applies to "Indian children", defined as "any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe."[10] Additionally, in the case of a voluntary adoption of an Indian child, the courts must follow specific guidelines for parents to waive their parental rights or have them terminated. ICWA provides that to relinquish parental rights, an Indian parent must: 1) do so in writing, 2) do so before a judge, 3) who must certify that the parent understood his or her actions, 4) understands spoken English or has a translator available, and 5) a relinquishment may not be executed prior to ten days after the child's birth.[11] The Indian parent may also withdraw their consent to an adoption at any time prior to a final order or within two years of the final order if their consent was obtain by fraud or duress.[12] If involuntary termination occurs, it must be "supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."[13] When consent is withdrawn or if ICWA procedures are not followed, the Indian child is to be immediately returned to the Indian parent.[14]

Tribal rights are also covered by the act.[15] Tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction for cases arising on Indian reservations[16] and concurrent jurisdiction elsewhere. The case may be removed from a state court to a tribal court at the request of the tribe[fn 1] unless one of the Indian child's parents object. In any case, the tribe has a right to intervene in the proceeding and to act to protect the tribal rights of the child.

Case history

Dusten Brown and Christina Maldonado were engaged to be married. Brown was a member of the Cherokee Nation and serving in the United States Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and the father of one other child. Maldonado was a non-Indian single mother of two. In Jan. 2009, Maldonado became pregnant,[18] On learning Maldonado was pregnant, Brown began to press her to go ahead and marry him, but in May 2009, Maldonado broke off the engagement by text message and cut all communications with Brown.[19] A few months prior to the baby's birth, she began to work with an adoption attorney to place the child with Matt and Melanie Capobianco of South Carolina.[20] Although Oklahoma law requires that an Indian tribe be notified, Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of birth, so the tribe was not put on notice of the proposed adoption.[fn 2][22] After receiving permission from Oklahoma authorities, based in part on the misidentification of the child as Hispanic instead of Native American, the Capobiancos took the child to South Carolina.[fn 3] Four months after the birth of the child and just days from deployment to Iraq, Brown was served with notice of the proposed adoption.[23] Brown signed the document, believing that he was relinquishing rights to Maldonado.[fn 4][23] Brown, once he realized what he was signing, immediately tried to retrieve the document, and failing that, contacted the Judge Advocate General at Fort Sill for assistance.[23] Seven days after being notified of the proposed adoption by the Capobiancos, Brown had obtained a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act[fn 5][23] and he deployed with his Army unit to Iraq.[fn 6][23]

Trial court

The adoption case was heard in Charleston County Family Court in September 2011.[26] Brown contested the adoption, and the Cherokee Nation intervened in the case.[27] The court denied the Capobiancos' petition to adopt the child, and ordered that the child be returned to Brown as the biological father.[23] South Carolina law terminates a father's parental rights if he did not provide pre-birth support and does not become involved with the child shortly after birth, but the court noted that ICWA preempts state law.[28] On November 25, 2011, the court issued a ruling, holding that 1) ICWA applied and was not unconstitutional, 2) the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case, 3) Brown did not consent to the termination of his parental rights or the adoption of his child, and 4) the Capobiancos had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Brown's parental rights should be terminated.[29] The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child. This was accomplished on December 31, 2011.[30] The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.[31]

Opinion of the state Supreme Court

Chief Justice Jean H. Toal delivered the opinion of the court on July 26, 2012. The five members of the court split 3-2, with Justices Costa M. Pleicones and Donald W. Beatty joining the majority opinion, while Justice John W. Kittredge, joined by Justice Kaye G. Hearn, dissented.[32] The opinion decided three issues: First, whether the Capobiancos had improperly removed the child from Oklahoma; second, whether state law or ICWA is determinative of Brown's status as a parent; and third, whether the Capobiancos met their burden of proof to terminate the parental rights of Brown.[29]

Toal noted that the Capobiancos were correct that the removal of the child from Oklahoma did not create an unsafe environment for the child, but they were incorrect on the legal issue. Had Oklahoma been properly notified that this was an Indian child, the Cherokee Nation would have been alerted, and the child's interests as a member of the tribe would have been protected.[33] She noted that at this point, the case was properly before the court, and proceeded to address the second issue.

The Capobiancos argued that it takes more than mere biology to invoke the provisions of ICWA, and under South Carolina law, a father must reside with the mother for the six-month period preceding the birth of the child and to contribute monetarily to pregnancy related expenses in order to have paternity rights.[34] However, the Court determined that ICWA does not defer to state law, and the trial court properly determined that ICWA grants Indian fathers greater rights than state law.[35]

Toal then turned to the last issue, the trial court's refusal to terminate Brown's parental rights. The Capobiancos could not show that Brown had agreed to consent to the adoption. The court noted that ICWA set out clear procedural guidelines and the Capobiancos did not comply with those requirements.[36] The Capobiancos also failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that's Brown's parental rights should be terminated. Under ICWA, prior to terminating an Indian parent's rights to the Indian child, the party seeking to terminate parental rights “shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.”[37] The court noted that the Capobiancos made no efforts to comply with this requirement of federal law,[38] but have actively sought to prevent the father from obtaining custody since the child was four months old.[39]

The court then addressed the best interests of the child. Toal said, "Where an Indian child's best interests are at stake, our inquiry into that child's best interests must also account for his or her status as an Indian, and therefore, we must also inquire into whether the placement is in the best interests of the Indian child,"[40] quoting Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield[41] that this was 'based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child's best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected."[42][fn 7] Toal stated that the best interest of the child was to be with her father, which also preserves her tribal affiliation.[44]

Finally, Toal addressed the placement requirements of ICWA, which requires that placement preference be given, in this order, to: 1) another member of the child's family, 2) another member of the child's tribe, and 3) another Indian family.[45] The court stated that neither Maldonado nor the Capobiancos had intended to comply with the statute, and that the Capobiancos could not thereby claim that the breaking of the bond formed by the child with the Capobiancos are grounds to ignore the statute.[46]

The court affirmed the decision of the Charleston County Family Court returning the Indian child to her father, and reiterated that ICWA preempts state law in the termination of parental rights for Indian parents.[47]

Dissent

Justice John W. Kittredge, joined by Justice Kaye G. Hearn, dissented.[48] Kittredge indicated that he believed that the state standards for best interest of the child should trump those of ICWA. Kittredge concluded that the trial court judge erred in her findings of fact.[fn 8][50] He noted that Brown had an income of approximately $23,000 in 2010.[51] He noted that Brown paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and had indicated that he did not intend to do so.[52] In addition, Kittredge stated that the record reflected that Maldonado informed both the adoption agency and the adoption attorney of the child's Cherokee heritage, but the notification to the tribe did not have the correct identifying information for the father.[53] At the child's birth, the Capobiancos were present, and Matt Capobianco cut the umbilical cord.[54]

He then went through an evaluation of ICWA, noting that South Carolina law does not allow a father in Brown's position to contest an adoption.[55] He noted that Brown acknowledged paternity and that a DNA test conclusively proved that Brown was the biological father.[56] Kittredge then stated that because Brown met the definition of an Indian parent, ICWA does apply to the case.[57] Even if Brown had not acknowledged paternity, the child was still an Indian and the federal law would apply.[58] However, Kittredge then stated that even though ICWA applied, Congress did not intend ICWA to replace state law with regard to a child's best interests.[fn 9][35]

Kittredge concluded that Brown had "abandoned" his child and should therefore not be allowed to contest the adoption.[56] He noted that the Capobiancos provided the child with a loving and stable home. Finally, he would have ruled that termination of Brown's parental rights was in the best interest of the child,[59] and would have reversed the decision of the trial court.

Subsequent developments

Media coverage

Coverage in the mainstream media has been extensive. The Charleston Post Courier ran a series of articles on the case,[60] and the news was picked up by other media outlets. These included local television stations,[61] distant televisions stations,[62] Cable News Network (CNN),[63] Fox News Channel,[64] national magazines,[65] to the New York Times.[66] Additionally, Dr. Phil McGraw featured the Capobiancos on his television show that aired on October 18, 2012.[67] The show immediately sparked controversy, with some Indian media calling for a boycott of his show due to what they alleged was a one-sided attack on Native Americans.[68] It has also been alleged that the mainstream media has disseminated incorrect and false information that portrayed the Capobiancos in a good light and Brown in a bad light.[fn 10]

Terry Cross of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) commented that despite all the negative press, ICWA was needed to protect Indian children from having their tribal rights taken from them.[fn 11] He noted that a failure to comply with ICWA was what caused the controversy in the case.[74] The author of ICWA, Senator Jim Abourezk initially stated that this is "something totally different than what we intended at the time"[75] but two weeks later said that the main intent of the law was to ensure that tribes had an opportunity to sign off on the adoption of tribal children.[fn 12][77]

Social media

The case has also received a great deal of coverage in social media.[78] A friend of the Capobiancos, Jessica Munday, started a "Save Veronica" campaign, aimed at gathering grassroots support for the couple's efforts to overturn both the Charleston Family Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court decisions.[79] Munday, who runs a marketing firm in Charleston, South Carolina, is responsible for making the case well known,[80] Responses from the Native American community point out the irony in the campaign, probably best illustrated by an editorial cartoon depicting "Veronica" asking if the backers of the campaign want to save her (an Indian child) from other Indians.[fn 13]

U.S. Supreme Court

After the South Carolina Supreme Court declined to rehear the case, Capobiancos filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Seven entities filed amici curiae briefs to the Supreme Court in support of hearing the case. This included briefing by two former U.S. Solicitors General: Paul Clement on behalf of the guardian ad litem, and Greg Garre on behalf of the birth mother. The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, the National Council for Adoption, California State Association of Counties and the Center for Adoption Policy were also among those that submitted briefs[82]

On January 4, 2013, the Court granted cert and agreed to hear the case.[83] This is only the second time that a case involving ICWA has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Holyfield being the first.[84] Brown is represented by attorney Charles Rothfeld, a director at the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic and Supreme Court litigator with the Washington, D.C., office of the international law firm Mayer Brown. The Cherokee Nation is represented by Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin, LLP. The Capobiancos are represented by attorneys Lisa Blatt and Mark Fiddler. Blatt heads the Appellate and Supreme Court practice with international law firm Arnold & Porter. Fiddler is a registered Native American attorney and the founder of the Indian Child Welfare Law Center[85] On April 1, 2013, the court decided assorted motions by amici for leave to participate in oral argument and divided the time allowed for oral argument as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem, 20 minutes for respondent Birth Father, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.[82]

The issue presented to the court is "(1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent."[82]

Three parties have filed merit briefs, the Capobiancos as petitioners, and both Brown and the Cherokee Nation as respondents. 32 different amici curiae briefs have been filed to date arguing the merits of the case. At present, nine have been in favor of reversal and the remainder, including the United States Department of Justice, support the respondents generally and/or affirmation.[86]

Decision

Jun 25 2013 -- Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Breyer, J., filed concurring opinions. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined in part.[87]

Footnotes

  1. ^ “Since ... state social service agencies and state courts are part of the problem, transfer of jurisdiction over child custody matters to tribal authorities is mandated by the ICWA whenever possible.”[17]
  2. ^ The pre-placement form indicated: "Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said she wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants], because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that naming him would be detrimental to the adoption."[21]
  3. ^ There was evidence that had the child been reported as Native American, the Capobiancos would not have been allowed to take her out of Oklahoma.[21]
  4. ^ In any event, the release would not have complied with ICWA, which requires a judge's certification that the parent understood exactly what rights they were signing away.[24]
  5. ^ The act allows soldiers who are being deployed into a war zone to place civil cases against them on hold until they return to the United States.[25]
  6. ^ Brown performed well in Iraq, earning the Bronze Star medal.[23]
  7. ^ Holyfield is the only United States Supreme Court case to discuss ICWA.[43]
  8. ^ In almost all appeals, appellate court judges are not permitted to find error in questions of fact, instead limiting themselves to questions of law. This is because the trier of fact has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and determine their credibility, while the appellate court judge cannot.[49]
  9. ^ This is the opposite conclusion reached by the majority.[58]
  10. ^ For example, the Huffington Post and the Associated Press indicated that the child had been legally adopted[69] when the petition for adoption had in fact been denied by the court.[70] It has also been stated by Anderson Cooper and the Huffington Post that Brown had relinquished his parental rights,[71] which the court ruled did not occur according to the relevant law.[72]
  11. ^ These rights include tribal services such as health and educational, voting rights, holding tribal office, property rights, inheritance of tribal rights, and tribal ceremonies and cultural activities.[73]
  12. ^ Abourezk also stated that “Attorneys and adoption agencies that are involved in these cases and should know the law don't, and don't follow it, and that's when these problems occur.” and “Who knows if they went to the tribal court, they may have given them permission, but they didn't.”[76]
  13. ^ The exact language is "Save Veronica from the Indian Child Welfare Act" and Veronica stating "Let me get this straight. You want to save me ... from me?"[81]

References

  1. ^ "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
  2. ^ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/25/adoptive_couple_vs_baby_girl_scotus_returns_baby_veronica_to_her_adoptive.html
  3. ^ The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Nov. 8, 1978, 93 Stat. 3071 (codifed as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963.
  4. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1901; Michael C. Snyder, An Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 7 St. Thomas L. Rev. 815, 820 (1995); Marcia Zug, Doing What's Best for the Tribe, Slate, Aug. 23, 2012.
  5. ^ Troy R. Johnson, The State and the American Indian: Who Gets the Indian Child?, 14 Wicazo Sa R. 197 (1999); Meg Kinnard, Court agrees with return of Native American girl to Oklahoma father, Tulsa World, July 26, 2012; Zug.
  6. ^ H. Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, H. Rep. No. 95-608, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530 (1978).
  7. ^ H. Rep. No. 95-608; Nigel V. Lowe & Gillian Douglas, Families Across Frontiers 254 (1996); Peter D'errico, Stolen Generations: Adoption as a Weapon, Indian Country Today, Jan. 2, 2013 ;Zug.
  8. ^ Alvin M. Josephy, Joane Nagel, & Troy R. Johnson, Red Power: the American Indians' Fight for Freedom 124 (2d ed. 1999); Zug.
  9. ^ B.J. Jones, Mark Tilden, & Kelly Gaines-Stoner, The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children 12-13 (2d ed. 1995)
  10. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) (1988); Snyder, at 821.
  11. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1913(a) (1988); Snyder, at 836-37.
  12. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1913(c) (1988); Snyder, at 837-38.
  13. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (1988)
  14. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1913(c) (1988); Snyder, at 837.
  15. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c) (1988); Snyder, at 828.
  16. ^ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 51-52 (1989); 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a) (1988); Snyder, at 826.
  17. ^ Snyder, at 827 (citing In re B.W., 454 N.W.2d 437, 446 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)).
  18. ^ Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 731 S.E.2d 550, 552-53 (S.C. 2012); Supreme Court Agrees to Consider 'Baby Veronica' Case, Indian Country Today, Jan. 4, 2013; The Baby Veronica Case: Information and Resources, National Indian Child Welfare Association (last visited Jan. 17, 2013) (hereinafter cited as NICWA).
  19. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 553.
  20. ^ Allyson Bird, James Island Family turns over 2-year-old Girl Following Court Order, Charleston Post & Courier, Dec. 31, 2011 (hereinafter cited as Bird, James Island); NICWA.
  21. ^ a b Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 554.
  22. ^ Bird, James Island; NICWA.
  23. ^ a b c d e f g NICWA.
  24. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1913(a)
  25. ^ Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, June 25, 1942, 56 Stat. 390 (codified as amended at 50a U.S.C. §§ 501–597b.
  26. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 556; Kinnard, NICWA.
  27. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 555-56.
  28. ^ Harriot McLeod, Native American Roots Trump in Adoption Battle over Toddler, Rueters, Jan. 8, 2012.
  29. ^ a b Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 556.
  30. ^ Bird, James Island; Kinnard; NICWA.
  31. ^ Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 398 S.C. 625; 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012)
  32. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 550; Kinnard.
  33. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 559; Zug.
  34. ^ S.C. Code Ann. § 63-9-310(A)(5) (2010); Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 560.
  35. ^ a b Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 560.
  36. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 561.
  37. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 562 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d)); Lacie Lowery, Cherokee Nation Defends Federal Law In Multi-State Child Custody Battle, NewsOn6, Jan. 6, 2012.
  38. ^ Zug.
  39. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 562.
  40. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 565 (emphasis in original); Kinnard.
  41. ^ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 30.
  42. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 565 (citing Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 50, n. 24).
  43. ^ Zug.
  44. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 565.
  45. ^ 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 566.
  46. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 566.
  47. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 567; Zug.
  48. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 567 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  49. ^ John B. Oakley & Vikram D. Amar, American Civil Procedure: A Guide to Civil Adjudication in US Courts 193 (2009).
  50. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 568 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  51. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 569 n.34 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  52. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 569 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  53. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 570 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  54. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 571 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  55. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 573-74 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  56. ^ a b Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 574 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  57. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 574-75 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  58. ^ a b Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 575 (Kittredge, dissenting).
  59. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 576-79 (Kittredge, dissenting); Kinnard.
  60. ^ Bird, James Island.
  61. ^ Eric Egan, Couple Will Fight for Adopted Daughter's Return, ABC News 4 Charleston, Jan. 2, 2012.
  62. ^ Adoption Case Of Oklahoma Girl Causing Outrage, KOCO Oklahoma City, Jan. 10, 2012; Keri Gift, Cherokee Adoption Controversy, Father Issues Statement, ABC 8 Tulsa, Jan. 17, 2012.
  63. ^ George Howell & Greg Botelho, Indian Family Protection Law Central to Emotional Custody Battle, Cable News Network, Jan. 8, 2012.
  64. ^ "Meghan Kelly, "Young girl taken by biological father 2 years after adoption"
  65. ^ Zug.
  66. ^ Adam Liptak, Case Pits Adoptive Parents Against Tribal Rights, N.Y. Times, Dec. 24, 2012.
  67. ^ Adoption Controversy: Battle over Baby Veronica, DrPhil.com, Oct. 18, 2012.
  68. ^ Donna Ennis, Opinion, The Stealing of Our American Indian Children, Indian Country Today, Oct. 19, 2012; Viewers Respond to Dr. Phil Episode About Baby Veronica Custody Battle: Boycott the Anti-Native American Dr. Phil Show, Indian Country Today, Oct. 19, 2012.
  69. ^ Andrea Poe, South Carolina Supreme Court Permits Biological Father to Take 2-Year-Old From Her Adoptive Parents, Huffington Post, Aug. 23, 2012; Kinnard.
  70. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 560; Michael Corcoran, Failures Lead to Flawed Understandings in Cherokee Adoption Case, TruthOut.com, Jan. 13, 2013; NICWA.
  71. ^ Anderson Cooper, Court gives baby Veronica to biological father, Anderson Cooper 360, July 26, 2012; Poe.
  72. ^ Adoptive Couple, 731 S.E.2d at 561; Corcoran; NICWA.
  73. ^ Terry Cross, Opinion, Full compliance with Indian Child Welfare Act, not its dismantling, is needed, Oklahoman, July 20, 2012.
  74. ^ Cross.
  75. ^ Allyson Bird, Decades Old Federal Act Removes 2-Year-Old Girl From the Only Family She's Known, Charlston Post and Courier, Jan. 8, 2012.
  76. ^ Adam Paluka, ICWA Law at Center of Adoption Controversy Fox23 News Tulsa, Jan. 23, 2012.
  77. ^ Paluka.
  78. ^ Bryan.
  79. ^ Michael Overall, Baby Veronica Adoption Case Lobbyists Move to Congress, Tulsa World, July 11, 2012.
  80. ^ Allyson Bird, Broken Home: The Saving Veronica Story, Charleston City Paper, (hereinafter cited as Bird, Broken Home).
  81. ^ Marty Two Bulls, Marty Two Bulls, 'Save Veronica from the Indians', Indian Country Today, Aug. 5, 2012.
  82. ^ a b c Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, SCOTUSBlog.com (last accessed March 22, 2013)
  83. ^ Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 12-399, 568 U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 11, 2013 WL 49813 (2013).
  84. ^ Bird, Broken Home.
  85. ^ Jon Tevlin, Adoption case from long ago brings lessons for one now, Star Tribune" Sept. 5, 2012.
  86. ^ Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases: 12-399, ABA (last visited June 4, 2013).
  87. ^ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adoptive_Couple_v._Baby_Girl&oldid=561545747"