The Washington Post

Supreme Court conflicted about what law dictates for Baby Veronica


Veronica currently lives with her biological father, Dusten Brown. (Jeremy Charles/For The Washington Post)

Supreme Court justices appeared deeply conflicted Tuesday as they considered the fate of Baby Veronica, whose adoptive parents were ordered to return her to the Native American father who once gave up rights to his biological daughter but now has embraced parenthood.

The hour-long oral arguments featured an emotional appeal from the attorney for Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the adoptive couple, and a lament from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy about the difficulty the case presented.

“These considerations are why domestic relations pose the hardest problems for judges,” he said. “If we could appoint King Solomon, who was the first domestic relations judge, as special master, we could do it. But we can’t do it.”

The case turns on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which Congress passed in 1978 to help preserve Native American families by erecting high hurdles for ending the parental rights of Indian parents and to discourage adoptions outside tribes.

Washington lawyer Lisa S. Blatt, representing the Capobiancos, told the justices that the intent of the law had been perverted in the case of Veronica and that affirming the decision to return the child to her father would set a dangerous precedent.

“You’re basically banning the interracial adoption of abandoned Indian children,” she told the court.

Moreover, she said, the lower court’s interpretation of the law gave an unwed Indian father veto power over a non-Indian mother’s decision to place her child for adoption.

“Your decision is going to apply to the next case . . . where a tribal member impregnates someone who’s African American or Jewish or Asian Indian, and in that view, even though the father is a completely absentee father, you are rendering these women second-class citizens” in deciding who raises their child, Blatt said.

Charles A. Rothfeld, representing Dusten Brown, the girl’s biological father, said it was simply false that a family court in South Carolina and the state Supreme Court did not decide the case based on the best interests of Veronica.

“The state courts found that ICWA should be applied to allow a natural father to raise his child,” Rothfeld said. “Those courts found that it’s in the best interests of the child . . . because that parent was a fit, was a loving, was a devoted parent.”

Brown and Christina Maldonado became engaged in December 2009 and learned a month later that she was pregnant. But she called things off after Brown pressured her to get married right away, and he later texted, in response to her question, that he would rather give up parental rights than pay child support.

Maldonado decided to place the baby for adoption. The Capobiancos met the mother through an adoption agency, supported her in her last months of pregnancy and were in the delivery room when she gave birth. They named Veronica and brought her to their home in Charleston, S.C.

When Brown later learned that the child had been placed for adoption, he immediately tried to stop the process and, as a member of the Cherokee Nation, invoked the ICWA.

The Capobiancos were ordered to turn over Veronica when she was 27 months old. She has lived with Brown and his new wife, Robin, in Nowata, Okla., for 15 months.

The couples sat in different sections of the ornate courtroom Tuesday as the justices applied a legal microscope to the provisions of the ICWA in search of an answer to Veronica’s fate.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor had the sharpest questions for Blatt.

Scalia said it would be “extraordinary” for courts to consider whether it was in the child’s best interests to terminate Brown’s parental rights and allow the adoption.

Sotomayor told Blatt that if “the father’s fit, why do you think that the federal statute requires that [the child] be given to a stranger?”

Blatt responded that “the only stranger in this case was the birth father, who expressly repudiated all parental rights and had no custodial rights.”

That seemed to strike a chord with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who was skeptical of Rothfeld’s description of Brown as “excited” by news of the pregnancy.

“There is no doubt he paid nothing during the pregnancy and nothing at the time of the birth, right, to support the child or the mother?” asked Roberts, who has two adopted children.

Before Rothfeld could answer completely, Roberts interjected: “So he was excited by it; he just didn’t want to take any responsibility.”

Roberts and other justices wondered whether any amount of Indian blood was enough to invoke the ICWA. Blatt has calculated that Veronica is “3/256ths Cherokee,” which Justice Stephen G. Breyer estimated meant Brown had “three Cherokee ancestors at the time of George Washington’s father.”

Asked Roberts, who in the past has been critical of government classifications of race: “Is it one drop of blood that triggers all these extraordinary rights?”

The court also heard from lawyer Paul D. Clement, representing a guardian appointed by the South Carolina courts who thinks the Capobiancos should get Veronica. He said the case should be returned to a South Carolina court with instructions to place more emphasis on the best outcome for the child.

Said Sotomayor: “I don’t want to be that judge, by the way.”

The case is Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl .

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
Quoted
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.