Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Headline: Court limits application of the Indian Child Welfare Act, allowing termination despite a biological Cherokee father’s claim when he never had custody, and saying adoption-placement preferences don’t apply without competing adopters.
Holding: The Court held that ICWA’s heightened standards for involuntary termination and required remedial efforts do not bar ending parental rights when the Indian parent never had legal or physical custody, and placement preferences need competing adoptive applicants.
- Allows adoption to proceed when an Indian parent never had custody.
- Limits tribal placement preferences unless other eligible adopters seek the child.
- Encourages state courts to apply ICWA standards only where parental custody existed.
Summary
Background
Birth Mother, a mostly Hispanic woman, chose a non-Indian South Carolina couple to adopt her daughter after her relationship with Biological Father, a registered Cherokee Nation member, ended. While pregnant the father texted that he relinquished rights and provided no support for months. Adoptive Couple supported the pregnancy, were at the birth, and Birth Mother signed surrender forms. Months later the father was served with notice, disputed the adoption, and a DNA test confirmed paternity. A family court denied the adoption and awarded custody to the father; the State Supreme Court affirmed and the child was transferred to him at 27 months. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether ICWA’s rules apply when an Indian parent never had custody and whether its adoptive-placement preferences apply without other adopters. It held that §1912(f)’s phrase “continued custody” presupposes a pre-existing custodial relationship, so that heightened proof against involuntary termination does not apply when a parent never had legal or physical custody. It read §1912(d)’s “breakup of the Indian family” similarly, applying that remedial-efforts requirement only where termination would discontinue an existing family relationship. The Court also held §1915(a) placement preferences only apply if other eligible adopters have formally sought the child.
Real world impact
The ruling makes it easier for non-Indian adoptive families to complete adoptions when the Indian biological parent never had custody, and it limits automatic tribal placement preference unless other eligible adopters step forward. The Court reversed the state high court and remanded for further proceedings under these legal principles.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor (joined by Ginsburg and Kagan) dissented, arguing ICWA protects parent-child relationships even without prior custody; Justice Thomas concurred on constitutional grounds; Justice Breyer concurred but warned about excluding too many biological fathers.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?