In 2009, a couple from South Carolina sought to adopt a child whose father
is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, and whose mother was Hispanic.
The girl, Veronica, 4, had been living in the Cherokee Nation with her father
since she was 2. Before that, she lived with the adoptive couple. The biological
father contested the adoption on the grounds that he was not properly notified.
He won his case, and it received extensive coverage in the national media.
In October 2012, the adoptive couple petitioned the
United States Supreme Court to review the case. SCOTUS issued a 5-4 decision,
sending the case back to the state court of South Carolina for further
hearings. In July 2013, the South Carolina court finalized the adoption of the
child to the adoptive couple, but shortly thereafter the Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled that the girl should not immediately be transferred from the custody of
her biological father to the South Carolina couple who adopted her.
This stay
was lifted on September 23, and the child was turned over to her adoptive
parents the same day, though further appeals by her biological father are said
to be likely.
What do you think of this verdict? Was it in the best
interest of the child?
1 comment:
The courts found that Veronica should be raised by her father, who said he never consented or wanted an adoption. The court system then failed Veronica by requiring her to be transferred unnecessarily at the age of 4 to a couple outside her own family. She was not "adopted at birth" as the media and adoption industry proclaim. The adoption was contested and if her best interest had been upheld from the beginning, she would never have been a pawn in a system of supply and demand.
Post a Comment