Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
133 S. Ct. 2552
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Baby Girl, 27 months old, is an "Indian child" under ICWA because her biological father is a member of the Cherokee Nation; she had lived since birth with a non‑Indian adoptive couple who initiated adoption proceedings.
- Biological Father learned of the pregnancy, allegedly relinquished rights by text, provided no financial support during pregnancy and first four months, and later contested the adoption after being served; paternity confirmed by DNA.
- South Carolina Family Court denied the adoptive couple's petition under ICWA and awarded custody to Biological Father; the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding §§ 1912(d), 1912(f), and § 1915(a) applied to bar termination and required placement preferences.
- Petitioners (Adoptive Couple) sought certiorari; U.S. Supreme Court granted review to resolve ICWA application where a biological parent never had legal or physical custody.
- The Supreme Court majority (Alito) reversed: held §§ 1912(f) and 1912(d) inapplicable where the Indian parent never had custody or abandoned the child pre‑birth, and § 1915(a) placement preferences do not block adoption when no eligible Indian placement petition was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) ("continued custody" standard) bars involuntary termination where parent never had custody | Adoptive Couple: § 1912(f) does not apply because Biological Father never had legal or physical custody; "continued" requires preexisting custody | Biological Father: "continued custody" can be read prospectively; §1912(f) bars termination absent the heightened showing even if parent lacked prior custody | Held: §1912(f) inapplicable where parent never had custody; "continued custody" refers to preexisting custody, so heightened standard not required here |
| Whether 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) ("active efforts" to prevent "breakup of the Indian family") applies where parent abandoned child before birth and never had custody | Adoptive Couple: §1912(d) requires "active efforts" only when termination would break up an existing Indian family; not triggered if family breakup already occurred | Biological Father/US: §1912(d) applies to protect parent‑child relationship even if no prior custody; services could be provided by tribe or agency | Held: §1912(d) inapplicable where parent abandoned child pre‑birth and never had legal/physical custody; no "breakup" to prevent |
| Whether § 1915(a) placement preferences bar adoption by non‑Indian couple when no Indian alternative formally sought adoption | Adoptive Couple: Preferences only operate when an eligible Indian placement has been proposed; absent other petitioners there is no preference to apply | Biological Father/Cherokee Nation: §1915(a) creates a default preference favoring Indian placements that should influence adoptive outcome | Held: §1915(a) does not bar adoption when no extended family, tribe members, or other Indian families have formally sought adoption; no alternative to prefer |
| Whether the Court should construe ICWA narrowly to avoid constitutional problems | Petitioners: Narrow construction avoids potential federal overreach and equal‑protection concerns; Thomas concurred on constitutional‑avoidance grounds | Biological Father/US: ICWA is a valid exercise of Congress's authority over Indian affairs and should be broadly applied | Held: Majority reads statutes narrowly on statutory grounds; Justice Thomas concurs additionally invoking constitutional‑avoidance (Indian Commerce Clause concerns) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA's purpose and scope; federal standards for removal/placement of Indian children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (biological father's interests in parent‑child relationship and procedural protections)
- United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365 (1988) (statutory construction is a holistic endeavor)
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) (discussion of congressional power in Indian affairs)