[PDF] You're Breaking Up: The Faulty Connection Between Congressional Intent and Supreme Court Interpretation in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013)
The chances of fully achieving these goals have been impeded bythe Supreme Court decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.9By holding that an Indian parent who never obtains custody of his child isnot privy to the protections offered by ICWA, the Supreme Court hasseverely limited the Act’s application. Tribal security and stability arehampered when Indian children are raised outside of the Native com-munity because the opportunity to pass on tribal customs, traditions,leadership and culture disappears.10 This Note begins by exploringthe historical facts leading to the passage of ICWA, its key provisions,and its application. Part III discusses Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girland the changes the Supreme Court has made to ICWA. Part IV con-cludes by arguing how in an effort to do right, the majority of SupremeCourt Justices twisted ICWA to arrive at a conclusion the statute, ifread plainly, does not support.
Danielle J. Larson
NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW: Current Issue: Volume 93, Issue 2 (2014)
The irony of this, Byler commented, was apparent. “[T]ribes that
were forced onto reservations at gunpoint and prohibited from leaving without a
permit, are now being told that they live in a place unfit for raising their children.”
Id. at 20; see also Janet L. Wallace and Lisa R. Pruitt, Judging Parents,
Judging Place: Poverty, Rurality, and Termination of Parental Rights, 77 MO. L.
REV. 95 (arguing that while courts have stated poverty is an impermissible basis
for termination of parental rights, many make rural places a proxy for poverty
and terminate on that basis instead).