Supreme Court says Native American child isn’t required to be given to father

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2013-06-25 15:15

Article here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal law doesn’t require that a Native American girl be given back to her biological father, but also doesn’t clear her adoptive parents to immediately regain custody of the now 3-year-old child.

In a resolution that one justice said could compound “the anguish this case has caused,” the high court voted 5-4 to send the case back to courts in South Carolina to determine the final home for an adopted little girl named Veronica.

South Carolina courts originally said the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act — a federal law intended to keep Indian children from being taken from their homes and typically placed with non-Indian adoptive or foster parents — favored her living with her biological father, who took custody of her in 2011. But the South Carolina couple who raised her for the first 27 months of her life appealed that decision, and justices have ordered her case reconsidered.
...
Added Scalia in a separate dissent: “This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Here is a biological father who wants his child. If I understand correctly, he was aware of the pregnancy, offered marriage, then there was a breakup and he never contacted the mother during the remainder of the pregnancy. I'm not sure if he truely abandoned making it impossible after the birth to know his intent and get his signature - which would influence my opinion. But here are some things to consider...

Adoptions do not take place until after the birth; any paperwork signed before birth is just a notice of intentions, but is not legally binding. This is how it works for mothers, because the law tends to want to give mothers a chance in case they change their minds after the birth. Fathers should have the same considerations.

I have never liked the 'father must show support or care for mother during pregnancy' bullshit. If the mother does not owe anything to the 'other' parent or to the child during pregnancy, then why should the father? Couldn't a woman claim this infringes on medical privacy laws to involve the father in doctor appointments and medical decisions if she did not want his input. Low income pregnant women also get social service handouts (free medical care) so really, mothers don't have to come up with anything to show or "prove" they want parental rights or even if they are not low income, they could pay for maternity care, but then abort. Also a man has no way of knowing if he is the real bio father or not, whereas a woman knows she is the bio parent for sure. 'Support during pregnancy' seems like just an easy way to deny fathers their rights during adoption disputes.

BTW, my cousins recently had a bio dad block an adoption. The state law gave the bio father so many days after birth to claim the child. The child was conceived in a casual relationship, there was two potential fathers, he had no contact with mother during pregnancy. When the child was born, the guy requested a DNA test and when it came back positive, he took full custody. So after months of planning and signing preliminary documents, my cousins came home without a baby. So things are different for each state, but I don't know any state that holds a mother accountable for her behavior during pregnancy (aside from criminal behavior) that would void her parenting rights at birth. Men deserve the same, especially since they may not have known about the pregnancy (there should be laws that women have to inform fathers) .

As a society we really should encourage biological parents to parent their children and have laws and policies that reflect the value of fatherhood.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Wed, 2013-06-26 08:57