Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
2013 U.S. LEXIS 4916, 570 US 637, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that prevent the involuntary termination of parental rights, specifically the heightened standard for harm from "continued custody" (§ 1912(f)) and the requirement for remedial services to prevent the "breakup of the Indian family" (§ 1912(d)), do not apply when the biological Indian parent has never had legal or physical custody of the child.
Facts:
- Birth Mother, who is predominantly Hispanic, and Biological Father, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, were engaged.
- After Birth Mother became pregnant, the couple's relationship deteriorated, and Biological Father refused to provide financial support until they were married. They broke off the engagement.
- In a text message exchange, Biological Father told Birth Mother he would relinquish his parental rights rather than pay child support.
- Birth Mother arranged a private adoption with Adoptive Couple, a non-Indian couple from South Carolina.
- Adoptive Couple provided emotional and financial support to Birth Mother during the pregnancy, were present at the birth in September 2009, and took custody of Baby Girl immediately after she was born.
- Biological Father provided no financial support during the pregnancy or for the first four months of Baby Girl's life and had no contact with her.
- Four months after the birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the adoption proceeding. He initially signed papers not contesting the adoption but then changed his mind and sought custody.
Procedural Posture:
- Adoptive Couple initiated adoption proceedings in South Carolina Family Court, which is a state trial court.
- Biological Father intervened to block the adoption and seek custody of Baby Girl; the Cherokee Nation also intervened.
- The Family Court denied the adoption petition and awarded custody to Biological Father, finding that Adoptive Couple failed to satisfy the heightened evidentiary standard of ICWA § 1912(f).
- Adoptive Couple, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the South Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, holding that both § 1912(d) and § 1912(f) of the ICWA barred the termination of Biological Father's parental rights.
- Adoptive Couple petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's requirement to show that "continued custody" by a parent would cause harm (§ 1912(f)) and its requirement for remedial services to prevent the "breakup of the Indian family" (§ 1912(d)) apply to a biological father who never had legal or physical custody of the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. The heightened parental rights protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act under §§ 1912(d) and 1912(f) are inapplicable where the parent has never had physical or legal custody of the child. The term "continued custody" in § 1912(f) plainly refers to a pre-existing state of custody, which Biological Father never had. Therefore, the requirement to prove that his custody would result in serious harm to the child does not apply. Similarly, the requirement in § 1912(d) to provide remedial services to prevent the "breakup of the Indian family" is inapplicable because no family unit ever existed to be broken up; the parent abandoned the child before birth. The ICWA was primarily designed to prevent the unwarranted removal of Indian children from existing Indian families, a situation not present here.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. The ICWA's heightened protections do apply because the majority's interpretation is contrary to the statute's text and purpose. The Act broadly defines "parent" to include any biological parent and defines "termination of parental rights" as any action ending the parent-child relationship, not just a custodial one. The majority's focus on the single phrase "continued custody" ignores the statute's overall structure and definitions, which are intended to provide uniform federal protections for the familial bonds of all Indian parents. The majority improperly substitutes its own policy judgments for Congress's explicit intent to prevent the placement of Indian children in non-Indian adoptive homes.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. Joining Justice Sotomayor's dissent, the term "continued custody" in § 1912(f) can refer to custody in the future, not just custody that existed in the past. The court must be satisfied that not just initial custody, but protracted custody, is unlikely to cause harm. The majority's opinion needlessly demeans the fundamental common law rights of parenthood.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While joining the majority's opinion, this outcome is also compelled by the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. Applying the ICWA to this state-law adoption proceeding, which involves neither "commerce" nor the regulation of an Indian "tribe" as a governing body, would exceed Congress's authority under the Indian Commerce Clause. The Constitution does not grant Congress plenary power to regulate domestic relations, a traditional area of state authority, simply because an individual of Indian descent is involved.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. The Court's opinion correctly interprets the statute but its holding should be read narrowly. This decision does not resolve how the ICWA would apply in different circumstances, such as if a father had visitation rights, was deceived about the child's existence, or was prevented from providing support. The opinion is limited to the specific facts of this case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act's most powerful parental rights protections. By distinguishing between custodial and non-custodial Indian parents, the Court holds that a biological parent who has not established a prior custodial relationship cannot invoke §§ 1912(d) and (f) to block an adoption. This ruling makes it less legally perilous for non-Indian families to adopt children with Indian heritage when the Indian biological parent was never part of an existing family unit with the child. The decision shifts the focus of ICWA's protections from preserving biological and tribal ties in the abstract to preserving existing, intact Indian families from being broken up by state agencies.
