NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE DR. PHIL SHOW’S COVERAGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT CASE
Portland, Ore.–On October 18, 2012, the Dr. Phil show aired an episode that focused on a disputed custody case involving an American Indian child, Veronica. The case pits a loving father’s attempts to parent his daughter against a non-Indian couple from South Carolina–the Capobiancos–and their attorneys who orchestrated an illegal attempt to adopt Veronica. The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is gravely disappointed in the heavy slant toward the Capobiancos’ recounting of the situation and interpretation of the legal issues in the case.
Veronica’s father, who has been relentlessly vilified in the media as a “deadbeat dad” is, in fact, a loving parent and a decorated Iraq war veteran. Rather than acknowledge his right to protect his daughter from a media firestorm that has proven deeply biased, the Dr. Phil show instead allowed personal attacks on his character and speculation on his parenting–from those who admittedly have had no contact with him–to continue unchallenged. We find these attacks unsupported by court records and unacceptable.
Veronica’s pre-adoptive placement was kept secret by her mother and attorneys representing the Capobiancos. Her placement with them was not revealed to Veronica’s father for four months–just days before he was sent to Iraq. Upon learning of his daughter’s proposed adoption, the father quickly moved to affirm his rights to parent Veronica. After three decisions supporting his rights in the South Carolina courts, he has been parenting her since January 2012.
Dr. Phil and several of his guests ignored the fraudulent process attorneys representing the Capobiancos used to help them gain custody of Veronica during their unsuccessful attempt to adopt her. That Veronica is American Indian was known by the Capobiancos and their attorneys, as was the fact that any adoptive process involving her would be covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Instead of delving into why the Capobiancos were advised to circumvent the law, putting Veronica at high risk, Dr. Phil instead chose to rebuff the two guests with the most knowledge of this case and experience in such matters, Assistant District Attorney of the Cherokee Nation Chrissi Nimmo and Les Marston, attorney and tribal judge.
NICWA understands this case is emotionally-charged and has attracted worldwide attention. Nonetheless, we must reject the subjective definitions of what is in Veronica’s best interest that Dr. Phil disappointingly reinforced. Not only did the discussion of Veronica’s “best interest” completely discount the importance of her cultural identity and rights as a tribal citizen, it more shockingly ignored the significance of her being raised within a loving home with her father, sister, stepmother, and loving grandparents–and among a community that includes extended family and tribal members who love her. As Nimmo correctly stated, if Veronica was a non-Indian child, existing state and federal laws would have afforded the father an opportunity to seek custody of her and not reward those who violated the law.
Furthermore, NICWA firmly believes that Veronica’s best interest is not served by the continued negative media campaign currently pursued by the Capobiancos and their public relations firm. We have no doubt they love Veronica, but in this case, the ends they hope to accomplish certainly do not justify the means. Dr. Phil’s portrayal only serves to put Veronica at further risk.
The show’s characterization of ICWA was also filled with misinformation and inaccuracies. ICWA is a law that has helped protect thousands of American Indian children and keep them with their families. Veronica’s story illustrates the clear ongoing need for federal protections like ICWA for American Indian children who continue to be the victims of questionable, and sometimes illegal, attempts to adopt them out.
To learn more about how you can support the National Indian Child Welfare Association’s efforts to strengthen protections for American Indian children and families and to access more information on this case, please visit our website at http://www.nicwa.org.
Turtle Talk 
As a former Tribal Appellate Justice and student of one of the great scholars on the Indian Child Welfare Act, B.J. Jones, and a former employee of one of the drafters of the Indian Child Welfare Act, Kurt V. BlueDog, I have to say that although I did not watch the Dr. Phil episode and can only comment on the media publications, I have to fully support the NICWA statement. I am appalled each time I have to defend ICWA in non-Indian atmospheres. When I adopted my son, through an ICWA-related case, my husband and I realized that what we were doing was extraordinarily beautiful because we were keeping the child’s culture alive by providing a stable and loving environment for him. I praise ICWA for having saved thousands of children’s lives.
Here is a link to the website for the Dr. Phil Show. There are video clips available to watch from this episode on the page..
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1895
This case is the exact reason this law was drafted. To protect a Native child! Dr Phil has lost me as a fan or viewer. This is just wrong! I was married to a Native for 20 years, divorced but continued to keep my children connected to their tribe and family! If I had given them up for adoption, I would have EXPECTED my husband to file on behalf of the children or even the tribe to file. I wanted my kids to know family, tribe, beliefs and have good roots. I can quote case after case of native children being adopted or put in homes with whites that left them empty and alone as adults. They didn’t know why until they started looking! You can take the native off the reservation but you can’t take their roots out of their basic heart. Being white, I have seen both sides of this issue and this law was NEEDED TO PROTECT NATIVE CHILDREN. If any of you , or dr phil, knew the history of whites and native children, foster care and native children, adoption and native children, YOU would have fought hard for this law. They must have their families, community, tribe and history to survive as an adult, IT is their ROOTS!
Reblogged this on wackyadorablefamily and commented:
You can’t adopt a child without both parents’ rights being terminated by their consent or through due process proceedings without their consent. Trying to do so otherwise is a decision that puts the child in danger. What in the world were the prospective adoptive parents thinking?
your awesome
I forgot to include: Sandy V. your awesome thank you for your truth.
Keep on raising the need for ICWA as it seems that dispite it being law, people continue to harbor their ism’s and biases as well as ignore the right of Indian children and families, let alone what is in the child’s best interest and what is the morally the right thing to do. Shame on the media and shame on Dr. Phill. Thankfully NICWA is here!
Dear “Wackyadorable family”,
Your statement about the law is not correct. Under US Supreme Court precedent an unwed father has no due process rights when he fails to take active, affirmation steps to assume responsibility for his child. See Lehr v. Robertson. So the rub here is whether you hold the father to the cut-off period under state law–which would have precluded his right to consent–or whether ICWA trumps such state laws.
Liberal, tree hugger, ICWA adoption attorney.
ICWA does trump such state laws. Section 1921 specifically states where the state or federal law provides higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child, the court shall apply the higher standard. ICWA’s standard of protection for the parent is higher than South Carolina’s state law in this case.