DeBoer ex rel. Darrow v. DeBoer

Background

A young child called Jessica has lived with the DeBoers since birth after an adoption process in which the mother consented. Later, the biological father reappeared, married the mother, and claimed parental rights. The Iowa Supreme Court ordered that Jessica be returned to her biological parents even though the Iowa courts did not evaluate whether that move would be in Jessica’s best interests. The DeBoers and Jessica, acting through a next friend, filed separate challenges in Michigan seeking a different outcome.

Reasoning

Jessica asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision while the high court considers the case. The Michigan court had concluded federal law required deference to the Iowa custody decree even though Iowa had not considered the child’s best interests. The applications for a stay were presented and referred to the Court, and the Court denied the stay request. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from that denial and said he would have granted the pause for careful review.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied the emergency pause, the Michigan ruling that defers to the Iowa custody order remains in effect for now. That means, at least temporarily, the child could be returned to the biological parents despite the absence of a best-interest finding in Iowa. This action is an interim procedural ruling and not a final decision on which party should have custody; the legal fight may continue on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun emphasized the child’s vulnerability and the sharp disagreement between state courts about whether custody decrees must consider a child’s best interests, and he would have stayed the ruling pending review.