When Adoption Goes Awry

DSC00275_1South Carolina couple Matt and Melanie Capobianco were over the moon when they adopted new-born baby Veronica in 2008. But their joy turned to grief, when at the age of three, Veronica was removed from their home and placed with her biological father, a person Veronica had never met, but whose ancestory trumped the Capobianco’s legal parenthood.

Father Dusten Brown, who lives in Oklahoma, was a member of the Cherokee nation.
He brought a court action seeking to have custody of his daughter in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law passed in 1978. The Act provides that Native American tribes and relatives should have a say in the placement of aboriginal children.

Mr. Brown successfully argued he was unaware that Veronica’s mother had given her up for adoption and her Native American heritage could only be fostered if she was raised by her father. The Appeal Court agreed. The judges said the Capobianco’s are “ideal parents”, but the law demanded a change in custody.

This week the United States Supreme Court will hear the Capobianco’s appeal and will weigh in again on the vexing question of aboriginal adoption.

The Court ruled in 1989 that tribal courts should determine these issues. In the 1989 case a tribal court permitted the adoptive parents to keep their adopted toddler twins, despite a claim by the children’s aboriginal relatives.

The federal government and eighteen other states, including Washington, California and Oregon, support the law. It’s difficult to believe that the removal of a three-year-old from the only parents she knows is in her best interests, particularly if the adoptive parents embrace and encourage her native heritage.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang


3 thoughts on “When Adoption Goes Awry

  1. You question whether taking her away from the only parents she has ever known is in her best interests, and that her adoptive parents would encourage her education about her heritage. But she has spent the last 2 years with her biological father. She knows him and loves him, and her step mother. She is being taught about her heritage by the people that live within that heritage. Removing her from her real family, to place her in an adoptive home, is surely wrong now? Maybe she should have originally stayed with the adoptive parents, but now she is settled, isn’t it wrong to uproot her again?

  2. Adoption is meant to find children homes when they need them, not to find childless couples children. Once bio-dad stepped up, his parental rights should have been honored. How was the child relinquished for adoption without his explicit consent?

    I’m an adoptee. The scars of having abandoning bio parents are lifelong. Barring abuse or neglect, how can anyone think giving this girl over to substitute parents is better than having her stay with the real thing? How do you think she will feel about this years from now? Just talk to any adoptee about the pain, confusion, and other adoption fallout. Adoption is not without very real lifelong emotional consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s