Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

East Coast Pirate

(775 posts)
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:41 PM Jun 2013

Supreme Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case [View all]

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court sided with a 3-year-old girl's adoptive parents over the legal claim of her father Tuesday in a case that revolved around the child's 1% Cherokee blood.

In doing so, the justices expressed skepticism about a 1978 federal law that's intended to prevent the breakup of Native American families -- but in this case may have created one between father and daughter that barely existed originally.

While four justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum found no way to deny the father his rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, five others -- including Chief Justice John Roberts, an adoptive father himself -- said the adoptive parents were the consistently reliable adults in "Baby Veronica's" life. They ordered the case returned to South Carolina courts "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

That the nation's highest court was playing King Solomon in a child custody dispute was unusual to begin with. It had jurisdiction because Veronica is 3/256th Cherokee, and the law passed by Congress 35 years ago was intended to prevent the involuntary breakup of Native American families and tribes.

More: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/25/supreme-court-baby-veronica-custody-native-american/2382699/

45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tough call, but I think the SCOTUS got it right. badtoworse Jun 2013 #1
+ 1 virgogal Jun 2013 #2
Nope ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #3
Read the story - that's not what happened badtoworse Jun 2013 #4
Reposting my answer to another thread - the mother concealed the adoption from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #5
How far is the child removed from the tribe with 3/256th heritage? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #7
I think it's ridiculous that 1% of her ancestry is enough to make her bound by Cherokee law. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #9
From the USA Today article badtoworse Jun 2013 #18
Sure, here you go ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #20
There seems to be a disagreement about the facts of the case badtoworse Jun 2013 #21
Exactly what adoption is that? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #22
Doesn't change my opinion badtoworse Jun 2013 #23
They shouldn't have hidden it from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #24
Here's my bottom line badtoworse Jun 2013 #25
Except your facts are wrong. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #26
I'm reacting to what I've read in the media and I'll concede the media could have it wrong. badtoworse Jun 2013 #30
3/256? That's about 1.18%. How does that even count as anything? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #6
It still qualifies the child ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #8
Well, she's 99% other, which should qualify her for protection under regular US adoption laws. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #10
No, but I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #11
So would you deny citizenship to a child born abroad to a US parent? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #12
I agree with giving US citizenship to a child based either on the citizenship of the parents. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #13
Which is why the law was enacted ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #14
The tribe almost certainly couldn't give a shit what happens to the child. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #15
The tribe cares more about her than these white people (the adoptive couple) do ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #16
What a pile of horseshit. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #17
I agree your post is a pile ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #19
I'm trying to understand something about this Orrex Jun 2013 #27
Tribal citizenship ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #28
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful answer Orrex Jun 2013 #31
except, what rights would the US actually have when American parents live out of country permanently rebecca_herman Jun 2013 #42
The US is a Contracting State under the Hague Convention ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #43
I read it, but I'm not seeing where it applies to the situation I described? rebecca_herman Jul 2013 #44
Sec. 26(2) & (3) state: ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #45
that's so ridiculous that my jaw dropped. and offensive. cali Jun 2013 #29
You just lost the debate with that racist statement. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #33
I didn't see anyone object to this statement ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #34
Because two wrongs always make a right. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #36
No, I did not ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #37
I am not taking sides on this but I think that a little history regarding the reasons behind this jwirr Jun 2013 #32
Well put. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #35
My sil has family that were treated similairly. The history is there for anyone to see. Do you know jwirr Jun 2013 #40
I don't know ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #41
This is a horrific case. Xithras Jun 2013 #38
Exactly right, plus he was at a distinct disadvantage ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court rules for a...