John Echohawk et al. on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: “The Adoption Industry’s Ugly Side”

John Echohawk, Jaqueline Pata, and Terry Cross have a scathing op-ed on Politico here.

An excerpt:

Poke beneath the basic facts, though, and you will find the ugly underbelly of the American adoption business. All across this country – but especially in states that are home to multiple Native American Tribes – unethical adoption attorneys are purposely circumventing the federal law that is meant to protect Native American children. Even worse are the continuing attempts by some adoption lawyers to take advantage of active duty service members in the process of being deployed to combat, or in active deployments.

Brown’s case is a sad example of both of these disturbing trends. At its very heart, this case is about a father’s deep desire to raise his daughter, named Veronica. Veronica’s mother and Brown were engaged when she was conceived, but her mother broke off the engagement while Brown was serving in the Army and stationed at Fort Sill, Okla. Unbeknownst to Brown, his fiancé began the process of placing her child up for adoption.

In the final months of pregnancy, the mother cut off all communication with Brown and worked closely with an agency and attorney to place the child with a non-Indian couple from South Carolina, the Capobiancos. Brown was not informed of Veronica’s birth on September 15, 2009. Instead, Veronica was placed with the Capobiancos three days after her birth in Oklahoma, and they relocated her to South Carolina shortly thereafter.

Four months later, the day before Brown’s scheduled deployment to Iraq, the couple’s lawyer (who was also the lawyer for the adoption agency) finally served Brown with notice of their intent to adopt Veronica. The notice was served to Brown in the parking lot of a mall.

Law Blog Postings on Baby Veronica Case

Lots of internet traffic on this case:

Faculty Lounge (Kate Fort’s Posting)

Constitutional Law Prof Blog (context relating to Indian boarding schools)

SCOTUSblog (argument preview, concluding with a note that the plain language favors tribal interests but Indians fare worse in SCT than prisoners)

Tulalip News (Q&A with Cherokee counsel)

Family Law Prof Blog forum on Baby Veronica

National Law Journal Appellate Lawyer of the Week — Chrissi Ross Nimmo

An excerpt (the full article text is available on the Cherokee Nation website):

Nimmo was born in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of Cherokee Nation. She was raised in Warner, Oklahoma, which, she likes to say, is probably the only town in the country with a college and no stoplight. “It’s that small,” she said. She has a master’s in business administration from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah and a law degree from the University of Tulsa College of Law.

The Cherokee Nation’s attorney general’s office is midsized “by Oklahoma standards,” 10 attorneys. Nine are tribal citizens and one is an “honorary” Cherokee. They are prosecutors in Cherokee court and in-house counsel to Cherokee Nation by advising its departments, handling contracts and appeals before administrative boards, among other duties.

Nimmo joined the attorney general’s office right out of law school in 2008. “I was in the top five percent of my class and did some internships at some big law firms in Tulsa,” she recalled. “I quickly realized that was not what I wanted to do when I graduated. Part of it was I wanted to be in a courtroom. I also didn’t want to do solo. This is a great place to work. As an attorney, I’m salaried and don’t do billable hours. Why would you ever leave that?

“Indian law is a tight knit group of attorneys. Whether you work in-house for a tribe or represent a tribe, every Indian law decision in an appellate court can affect all tribes.”

Miller v. Wright Cert Petition

Here:

Miller v Wright Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The questions presented in this case are:
1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?
2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe, acting beyond their authority, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?
Lower court materials here.

 

Andrew Cohen on Baby Veronica in The Atlantic

A powerful read. Update — We’ll keep this on the front page of Turtle Talk for a few days.

Here.

An excerpt:

The United States Supreme Court next Tuesday hears argument in a head-spinning case that blends the rank bigotry of the nation’s past with the glib sophistry of the country’s present. The case is about a little girl and a Nation, a family and a People. The question at the center of it has been asked (and answered) over and over again on this blessed continent for the past 400 years: Is the law of the land going to preclude or permit yet another attempt to take something precious away from an Indian?

Update: Kate Fort’s post on the case here on the Faculty Lounge.

Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations SCT Amicus Brief in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Hermann

Here:

Chickasaw and Choctaw Amicus in 11-889

The SCOTUSblog page on this case is here.

 

Marcia Zug on the Adoptive Couple Case

Marcia Zug has published “Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Two-and-a-Half-Ways to Destroy Indian Law” in Michigan Law Review’s First Impressions.

The synopsis:

In December 2011, Judge Malphrus of the South Carolina family court ordered Matt and Melanie Capobianco to relinquish custody of Veronica, their two-year-old, adopted daughter, to her biological father, Dusten Brown. A federal statute known as the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) mandated Veronica’s return.  However, the court’s decision to return Veronica pursuant to this law incited national outrage and strident calls for the Act’s repeal. While this outrage was misplaced, it may nonetheless have influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal. The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is emotionally complicated, but it is not legally complex. Therefore, the Court’s interest is surprising and likely means that this case will determine more than the fate of a single child.

The court returned Veronica Capobianco to her biological father because the termination of his parental rights and the subsequent adoption attempt did not comply with the requirements of ICWA. South Carolina law would have permitted the involuntary termination of Brown’s parental rights, but ICWA supersedes state law and forbids such involuntary terminations. Consequently, because Brown never relinquished his rights, the family court held that Veronica was not eligible for adoption and that she must be returned to Brown. The South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this decision. The court agreed that under the clear language of the Act, Brown qualified as a “parent” and that the termination of his parental rights must comply with ICWA.

More News Coverage of Ward Churchill Case

Here.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Ward Churchill Case

Here.

Petition here.

News coverage here and here.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/Cherokee Nation Oral Argument Time Splits

From today’s SCT order:

Upon consideration of the motions for leave participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and the motions for divided argument, the time is to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem, 20 minutes for respondent Birth Father, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.

Presumably that means:

20 minutes for petitioners — Lisa Blatt

10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem — Paul Clement

20 minutes for respondent Birth Father — Charles Rothfield

10 minutes for the Solicitor General.

Another monster Indian law argument before the Supremes.