Deboer ex rel. Darrow v. Deboer
Headline: Court denies emergency stay and requires Michigan caregivers to turn over a child to her Iowa biological parents, upholding interstate enforcement of state custody orders.
Holding: Justice Stevens denied the emergency stay requests, concluding no likely Supreme Court review and directing Michigan courts to enforce Iowa custody orders returning the child to her natural parents.
- Requires Michigan caregivers to return the child to her Iowa biological parents.
- Affirms that states must honor custody orders issued by other states.
- Prevents unrelated caretakers from keeping custody absent terminated parental rights.
Summary
Background
Applicants are Michigan residents who sought to keep a child they had tried to adopt after the child was born in Iowa on February 8, 1991. When the child was 17 days old, the applicants filed an adoption petition in Iowa. Iowa courts later found the child’s biological father’s parental rights had not been lawfully terminated, so the applicants were not entitled to adopt. The Iowa courts and the Michigan Court of Appeals entered custody orders directing the child be delivered to her natural parents in Iowa, and the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the applicants to comply.
Reasoning
Justice Stevens, acting as Circuit Justice, reviewed emergency applications from the Michigan caretakers and from the child’s representative asking for a stay of enforcement. He concluded there was neither a reasonable probability the Supreme Court would agree to review the case nor a fair prospect the Court would find the lower courts wrong. He found no valid federal objection to the Iowa proceedings and agreed that neither Iowa law, Michigan law, nor federal law allows unrelated people to keep custody of a child when the natural parents have not been found unfit. He endorsed the Michigan Supreme Court’s careful explanation that Michigan courts must give effect to the Iowa rulings.
Real world impact
The ruling requires the Michigan caregivers to comply with the interstate custody orders and deliver the child to her natural parents in Iowa. It reinforces that state custody and adoption rulings made under state law can be enforced by courts in another State. Because this decision denies the emergency stay, it is not a new, separate national ruling on adoption law by the Supreme Court.
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?