The mother decided that as a single mother she could not provide the same standard of living and opportunities than adoptive parents (in this case the state of South Carolina). The mother gave up the child at birth and reportedly the biological father did not object (I'm not sure about this point, because he did object to signing the adoption paperwork). The biological father, who showed no such qualms about his daughter being raised by a struggling single mother and provided zero support, initially signed paperwork not realizing the purpose was for an adoption and had an adoption eve conversion on bis parental responsibilities. Under South Carolina law, the father's abandonment of the child would have worked to the advantage of the adoptive parents. But the father was holding a trump card--he had a Native American ancestor, enough to qualify as a member of the Cherokee Nation. A 1978 federal law (ICWA), a reform intended as a check on excessive outsourced adoptions from reservations, even though the father (never mind the mother) did not live on a reservation and baby Veronica is only just over 1% Native American by blood. The girl lived with the adoptive parents for over 2 years until the South Carolina courts eventually awarded custody to the biological father based on the ground of federal supremacy (the couple relinquished custody in late 2011). The adoptive parents appealed to SCOTUS, which ruled 5-4 that the lower courts' determination of applicability of ICWA was in error.
In the aftermath, the adoptive parents have asked the SC Supreme Court to expedite a new hearing on the reopened case; the biological father holds hope that the court will award custody to his parents or the tribe.
There are a few additional comments I want to make:
- Justice Sotomayor really irritated me with her comment to the effect two wrongs don't make a right, that returning Veronica to the custody of the adoptive parents from her current (biological father's) home would be traumatic. Yeah, I'm sure that kidnappers of small children will love this line of reasoning. This was basically a legally-sanctioned kidnapping of a young girl from the only parents she had known. I furthermore find it incredulous that the three female SCOTUS justices went out of their way to defend the rights of a deadbeat father, at the expense of a little girl, half-Latina at that... So much for that 'wise Latina' nonsense.
- I am disappointed that the Cherokee tribe would have allied themselves with a man whose personal conduct doesn't reflect well on the tribe, whom has only marginal Cherokee heritage. I find it morally unacceptable for them to abuse extraordinary privileges in aiding and abetting an effort to take a young girl, with only a trace of Indian blood, whom had never lived on a reservation, from a good, loving home and a better life. Incidentally my mother at one point told me that I had a paternal great-grandmother whom was Cherokee and said that I inherited my high cheekbones from her. (However, I haven't documented my Dad's side of the family. I did think that it was cool that I had a Native American in my family tree, but I consider myself a Franco-American.)
- I am sympathetic to the plight of many fathers in custody fights. But the biological father in this case is no man's man. A man's man is chivalrous towards women and stands up to his responsibilities. This is not a case where he didn't know about the pregnancy. But he used support money as a way to manipulate his girlfriend's behavior; first, it's a lousy way for a guy to treat a lady, and it's probably a warning sign of how miserable married life together will be; second, child support is about your responsibilities for your child. Withholding money endangers the well-being of your child. And you can't tell me that letting your child grow up in a single parent household of limited means is better than letting her grow up in a 2-parent home with more resources to provide her a better future. (This is not an attack on lower-income families; I grew up in one. But in this case we are talking about taking a girl from the only parents she's ever known.)
- As for legislators in the 1970's: I don't understand if there was an issue with how the Bureau of Indian Affairs was handling adoptions of children born and/or raised on reservations, why they didn't simply reform BIA or relevant policies, rather than grant sweeping racial privileges, blatantly unconstitutional. For example, suppose one of my 4 Franco-American grandparents had been Native American. I would have been clearly more Franco-American than Indian. What about the comparable rights in defense of my Franco-American culture, which I assure you is also in danger? I see many writers call Veronica an Indian child, although she is only 1.2% Indian by blood.
- Finally, SCOTUS. Isn't it time to call unconstitutional bills unconstitutional? Race-based privileges? Arbitrary, liberal designation of an Indian child? At the very least, can't we see an approach like that taken in the Voting Rights Act where the status quo of Indian adoptions are considered, or where as in affirmative action cases we see constraints on utilization of racial preferences?
