Share “Supreme Court rules against Oklahoma man...”

Supreme Court rules against Oklahoma man in Cherokee adoption case

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law intended to keep Indian families together doesn't automatically give custody to a Cherokee father in Oklahoma. His 3-year-old daughter was adopted by a South Carolina couple at her birth.
by Chris Casteel Modified: June 25, 2013 at 7:50 pm •  Published: June 25, 2013

— A federal law intended to keep American Indian families together doesn't apply to a Cherokee father in Oklahoma who never had custody of his daughter before she was given to an adoptive couple in South Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The 5-4 decision in the case could mean that 3-year-old Veronica, who is now living with her father in Oklahoma, will be returned to the South Carolina couple who raised her for the first 27 months of her life.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to South Carolina courts to determine custody.

Chrissi Nimmo, an attorney for the Cherokee Nation, which is a party in the case, said Tuesday that the tribe would argue the child's best interests would be served by staying with her father.

“This has been a long, emotional case, and it is by no means over,” Nimmo said.

Nimmo said she expected action in the courts relatively soon and that she hoped proceedings wouldn't drag out for years.

The adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, of James Island, S.C., said in a statement, “We are very happy with (the) ruling that came down today.

“The Supreme Court did everything we asked it to do. The decision ... clearly establishes that our adoption should have been approved, and Veronica should never have been taken away from her home and family in the first place. We miss her very much and we are looking forward to the opportunity to see our daughter very soon.”

Law doesn't apply

The high court's ruling turned mostly on a single phrase in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 — “continued custody.”

Since the biological father didn't have legal or physical custody of the girl when he began his fight against the South Carolina couple's adoption, the federal law meant to keep Indian families intact essentially didn't apply to the case, the court ruled.

The father, Dusten Brown, of Nowata, and the mother of the child never married, and Brown provided no financial support during the pregnancy. He relinquished his parental rights in a text message to the mother, though he said later that he did so thinking that the mother was going to raise the child.

The mother chose a South Carolina couple to adopt the girl, and the couple were present at the child's birth.

However, a family court in South Carolina awarded custody to Brown because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, written at a time when many Indian children were being taken from their homes by public and private welfare agencies. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the family court's decision.

Continue reading this story on the...

by Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Chris Casteel began working for The Oklahoman's Norman bureau in 1982 while a student at the University of Oklahoma. After covering the police beat, federal courts and the state Legislature in Oklahoma City, he moved to Washington in 1990, where...
+ show more


Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Twelve Weeks To A Six-Figure Job
  2. 2
    New York Pain Clinic Doctor Is Sentenced in Overdose Deaths of 2 Patients
  3. 3
    Time Lapse: Amsterdam Light Festival
  4. 4
    Baby Jesus gets GPS
  5. 5
    NORAD's Santa Tracker Began With A Typo And A Good Sport
+ show more