A biological Indian father “could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother — perhaps contributing to the mother's decision to put the child up for adoption — and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother's decision and the child's best interests,” the court said.
No statement from Brown was available on Tuesday.
Four justices dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion that the majority decision distorted the federal law by reading the phrase “continued custody” too literally and out of context with the intent of the law.
The ruling against the Cherokee father, she wrote, “ignores Congress' purpose in order to rectify a perceived wrong that, while heartbreaking at the time, was a correct application of federal law and that in any case cannot be undone.
“Baby Girl has now resided with her father for 18 months. However difficult it must have been for her to leave Adoptive Couple's home when she was just over 2 years old, it will be equally devastating now if, at the age of 3½, she is again removed from her home and sent to live halfway across the country.
“Such a fate is not foreordained, of course. But it can be said with certainty that the anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today's decision.”
Christy Maldonado, the birth mother, said in a statement, “The Supreme Court has clarified that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply to this case, and other cases like this one, where a biological father had no interest in fatherhood before the child's birth, and a single mother like me has made the difficult and personal decision that it's in her child's best interest to be placed with a loving adoptive family.”