Native American Rights Fund | National Congress of American Indians
in partnership with the National Indian Child Welfare Association
For Immediate Release
March
29, 2013
Media
Contacts:
Thom
WallaceNational Congress of American Indians
twallace@ncai.org
O (202) 466-7767 ext. 207
C (202) 630-1094
Nicole Adams
National Indian Child Welfare Association
nicole@nicwa.org
O (503) 222-4044 ext. 133
C (503)754-0466
Adoptive Couple
v. Baby Girl
Amicus Briefs in
Support of Brown Family Include U.S. Solicitor General, 19 States, and Broad
Coalition of Supporters
Twenty-Four
Briefs Call for Brown Family—Daughter, Veronica, and
Father, Dusten—to Remain Together and
Indian Child Welfare Act to Remain Intact
Father, Dusten—to Remain Together and
Indian Child Welfare Act to Remain Intact
Brown Family, Who Have Prevailed in Every Court So Far, Will Have
Fate Decided by the Supreme Court in a Case to be Heard on April 16th
Fate Decided by the Supreme Court in a Case to be Heard on April 16th
Washington, DC—The United States federal government and 19 states are among a broad coalition who filed amicus briefs yesterday with the United States Supreme Court supporting the rights of Native American father Dusten Brown and his daughter, Veronica, to remain together as a family, calling for the nation's highest court to uphold a previous South Carolina Supreme Court decision. The well-being of Veronica, the Brown family, and the importance of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a focus of all the briefs.
The case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, to be heard by the Supreme Court
on April 16, 2013, involves a South Carolina couple seeking review of a South Carolina Supreme
Court ruling and attempting to force Dusten Brown, a member of
the Cherokee Nation, to give his daughter Veronica up for adoption. Mr. Brown,
who is now raising Veronica at their home in Oklahoma, has prevailed in every
court that has considered this matter, including the South Carolina Family
Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Joining
the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and 19 states, including 18 state
attorneys general, are a large array of groups who submitted 24 separate briefs
in all. The overwhelming support includes 17 former and current members of
Congress; Casey Family Programs, the Children's Defense Fund, and 16 other
child welfare organizations; the American Civil Liberties Union; broad
coalitions of psychology associations, child advocates, and legal experts;
adult Native American adoptees; and tribal amicus briefs which include 333
American Indian tribes.
"The
broad base of support in this case is historic. In the history of the work of
the Tribal Supreme Court Project, no Indian law case has generated more of a
unified message to the Supreme Court about Indian law," said Richard Guest,
staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), noting the
outpouring of interest and support for Veronica, the Brown family, and ICWA.
Many of the briefs highlight the
findings of the South Carolina Family Court, which found that "the birth father
is a fit and proper person to have custody of his child" who "has convinced
[the Court] of his unwavering love for this child," and were upheld by the
South Carolina Supreme Court.
The
amicus brief of the United States federal government emphasized the importance
of ICWA, stating that "the United States has a substantial interest in the
case because Congress enacted ICWA in furtherance of 'the special relationship
between the United States and the Indian tribes and their members and the
Federal responsibility to Indian people.'" The brief further defends the constitutionality
of ICWA, arguing that "ICWA, which is predicated on Congress's considered
judgment that application of its protections serves the best interests of
Indian children and protects vital interests of their parents and Tribes, does
not violate any substantive due process protections." It concludes that
"[t]he South Carolina courts properly awarded custody of Baby Girl to
Father."
In the brief of leading national child
welfare organizations, the best interest of the child is highlighted, in
addition to the value of ICWA.
No one
understands the human toll custody disputes can take more than amici, 18
child welfare organizations who have dedicated literally scores of years to the
on-the-ground development and implementation of best practices and policies for
child placement decision making. Amici have seen up close what works,
and what does not. In amici's collective judgment, ICWA works very well
and, in fact, is a model for child welfare and placement decision making that
should be extended to all children. Much forward progress in the child welfare
area would be damaged by rolling the law back.
A brief from Arizona Attorney General
Tom Horne was joined by attorneys general from 17 other states—Alaska,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington,
and Wisconsin— and argued against interference in the relationship between
states and tribes in matters regarding ICWA, asserting, "States and tribes have
collaborated to ensure that the mandates and spirit of ICWA are fulfilled….
Early and complete compliance with ICWA ensures the security and stability of
adoptive families as well as tribes and Indian families." The State of
Minnesota Department of Human Services also filed a brief.
Not
one state submitted briefs in support of Adoptive Couple.
"This
brief includes nine Republican and nine Democrat attorneys general," said John
Dossett, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) general counsel. "Party
affiliation does not matter. The federal trust responsibility is a nonpartisan
commitment, which includes support for the rights of American Indian families
and tribal governments to protect their Indian children—and in this case, for a
loving father to be with his daughter and for her to be with her family."
Seventeen
current and former members of Congress also reflected this bipartisan support,
noting in their brief the circumstances that led to the enactment of ICWA in
1978, as well as asserting Congress's exclusive power to legislate with respect
to Indian tribes. It stated:
In 1978, Congress
enacted ICWA in direct response to state adoption policies that were draining
Indian tribes of their future citizens. Such practices threatened the very
existence of Indian tribes. Without children to grow up as their citizens,
tribes would be left with no one to speak their language, carry on their
traditions and culture, or participate in their tribal governments….
Ultimately, any decision limiting Congress's authority to pass legislation like
ICWA…would effectively preclude Congress from exercising its plenary authority
in Indian affairs, and render Congress unable to fulfill its historic duties as
trustee to the Indian tribes.
Terry Cross, executive director of the
National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), commended former Senator
James Abourezk for taking the lead on the brief, stating, "Senator Abourezk
sponsored the bill that became ICWA because he recognized that the widespread
removal of Indian children from their homes was a continuation of forced
assimilation practices that had no place in our society. His leadership today
sends an unmistakable message that there is unified support in defending his
law from those who would return to the pre-ICWA era."
Two national tribal amicus briefs were
submitted. The first, focused on the legislative history and importance of
ICWA, was submitted by the Association on American Indian Affairs, NCAI, and
NICWA, who were joined by 30 Indian tribes and five Indian organizations. A
second national tribal amicus brief addresses the constitutional issues raised
by the petitioners and also includes 24 tribal nations and organizations. The
members of the Tribal Supreme Court Project—NARF and NCAI—in partnership with
NICWA, joined together to organize the briefs in support of the father. In all,
333 tribes submitted briefs in support of the father.
Oral arguments for Adoptive Couple v.
Baby Girl will be held on April 16, with a decision expected shortly
thereafter.
Resources: List and Links
Amici
in Support of Respondents
- Amicus
Brief of the United States
- Amicus
Brief of the State of Arizona and 17 States
- Amicus
Brief of the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Amicus
Brief of Members of Congress
- Amicus
Brief of Casey Family Programs and 17 Other Child Welfare Organizations
- Amicus
Brief of The Friends Committee on National Legislation, et al.
- Amicus
Brief of the Psychologists Associations
- Amicus
Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union
- Amicus
Brief of Family Law Professors
- Amicus
Brief of the Child Advocacy Clinic (GAL)
- Amicus
Brief of Indian Law Professors
- Amicus
Brief of AAIA, NCAI, NICWA, et al. (Legislative History)
- Amicus
Brief of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, et al. (Constitutional Issues)
- Amicus
Brief of the Alaska Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the Arizona Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the California Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the Minnesota Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the Navajo Nation
- Amicus
Brief of the Oklahoma Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
- Amicus
Brief of the Wisconsin Tribes
- Amicus
Brief of the National Native American Bar Association
All
of the briefs filed by supporters of Dusten Brown's right to raise his daughter
can be found at: http://bit.ly/ZrIS22
All
filings for the case can be found at: http://bit.ly/11TpaDY
More
information about the case can be found at: http://www.nicwa.org/babyveronica/
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg){kind=link}