On July 26, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision affirming the return of Veronica, an adopted 2-year-old Cherokee child, to her biological father, Dusten Brown. The court’s decision was devastating for her adoptive parents, Melanie and Matt Capobianco, who had been raising the child since her birth after her biological mother willingly gave her up for adoption. "I'll always remember her crying when we had to—we had to walk out of that office and leave her there," said Melanie Capobianco referring to Veronica’s reunification with Brown. “We’re kind of reeling from it, and reliving having to hand her over in our minds constantly is painful,” the couple added.
Since Veronica’s reunification with Brown in January, the Capobiancos have been fighting ceaselessly for her return. Veronica’s case has garnered national attention and unprecedented support. For months, pictures of the smiling toddler with her adoptive parents have been splashed across South Carolina papers and featured on CNN and in the Weekly Standard. Moreover, these news stories about "Baby Veronica" almost uniformly support the Capobiancos, with articles and commentary expressing outrage at the fact that although South Carolina law supports terminating Brown’s parental rights due to his lack of involvement and financial support before and after Veronica’s birth, this state law is superseded by an “obscure law” or “federal loophole” known as the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
ICWA is a federal statute that regulates the custody and placement of American Indian children. Brown is an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe, and Veronica is also eligible for membership. As a result, ICWA applies to Veronica’s adoption, supersedes state law, and mandates her reunification with Brown. Many Native American law scholars and advocates believe that ICWA is the most important American Indian law ever enacted, but its application in this case has caused fury. More than 20,000 people have signed the “Save Veronica” petition, which calls for an amendment to ICWA to prevent the return of children like Veronica. However, ICWA is no “loophole.” The act specifically contemplated situations like Veronica’s, and in this case, ICWA operated exactly as it was intended to."
Get the Story:
Marcia Zug: Doing What’s Best for the Tribe
South Carolina Supreme Court Decision:Adoptive
Couple v. Cherokee Nation
(July 26, 2012)
Related Stories:Couple wants rehearing in ICWA case of Cherokee
(8/14) Court supports return
of child to Cherokee father under ICWA
(7/26)Terry Cross: Compliance with Indian Child Welfare
(7/25) New group lobbies
Congress to change Indian Child Welfare Act
(7/11) Couple in ICWA case says Cherokee child is more
(04/19) South Carolina court
hears ICWA case for Cherokee child
(4/17) Former Sen. Abourezk clarifies comment about ICWA
(01/24) South Carolina Supreme
Court pushed to take up ICWA case
(01/18)Cherokee Nation seeks gag order in ICWA dispute
(1/5) Cherokee Nation man
wins custody of daughter in ICWA case
Join the Conversation