Back in April, law student/author/friend to The Toast Meagan Hatcher-Mays wrote an article about the Baby Veronica case, which had just then reached the Supreme Court. The response she received was overwhelming. We asked if we could speak with her about the details of the case and the reaction to her piece.
Meagan! Thanks so much for being willing to talk with us about this.
No problem!
So you wrote this piece about Baby Veronica (something of a misnomer at this point, as she’s not so much a baby at this point, but we’ll stick with it) back in April.
Yeah, that was just before the SCOTUS decision. Right after oral arguments. It was the first time I’d written about it, but I was familiar with the case; I was taking an Indian Law class at the time, and I have a number of friends who work in tribal courts and in Indian affairs.
This was the first time you’d written about it professionally, though.
Yes. And I never wrote about it again after that [laughs].
Did you have much of a sense for how controversial this piece would end up being?
Honestly, no. Maybe that was naïve of me. I tried to be as careful as possible, as far as not being too lenient on [Dusten Brown]. I really tried to lay out what happened as honestly as I could.
What struck me as so odd — at least based on my layperson’s understanding of the case — is that you would think that in general his evolution as a parent would have been an ideal situation for the courts. In theory, at least, the state is supposed to support the right of the biological parent except in the case of neglect or abuse. So an outcome where the father decides to step up and raise her seems like it would be exactly what they want.
Right! I also think what kind of goes overlooked is that some of his initial “disinterest” was at least due in part to the fact that he was overseas, serving in the National Guard, when Veronica was born.
And the responses you got for the article was pretty immediate and pretty angry, right?
It was really incredible. I thought that this case might be controversial or tough to talk about, but I certainly didn’t anticipate such a personal, vicious response. Generally, when I write a piece, I like to read through the comments or Tweets or emails or whatever response I get, because if there’s some point of confusion about how I’ve explained the law, I want to know. This was the first article I’d ever written where I couldn’t find a single positive thing someone had said. And it wasn’t that people were disagreeing with my legal or cultural analysis — many people told me that I only wrote it because I hated white people and that I was a bad person. This was everywhere — in the comment section, on social media, I even got messages through my personal website. One message read: “You wrote this because you clearly hate white people.” It was shocking.
Wow, that’s really intense.
Look, I have my beef with white people, but I love them all the same.
Well, it seems like in a lot of ways this dovetails with an undercurrent of…something in the adoption industry, where quite a lot of adoptive couples tend to be white, wealthy, heterosexual, and middle-aged. They tend to have a lot of money and influence, comparatively speaking.
Yes. Transracial adoption is becoming more popular and in my opinion, it can sometimes be driven largely by white savior complexes. So this is part of a trend, not an isolated occurrence. White people who want to adopt across racial boundaries I’m sure are wonderful people for the most part, but we also know that white people can’t prepare those kids for the kinds of racism they’re going to experience just by buying them a non-white doll and hoping for the best. We know that 40% of white people don’t have a non-white friend.
Oh, and by the way, the least adopted type of children are black boys (here’s a good article about it). To me a lot of this is like, “Well, I can help them. I can save them.”
The idea of saving poor children, particularly girls.
How we equate money and race with good parenting.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it was passed along to me recently, and it’s a really fascinating look at how CPS often uses poverty as an indicator of neglect. So a poor parent can, in the eyes of the state, be considered almost by default an “unfit” parent.
YES. MALLORY.
There’s this idea that not just the state but also adoption agencies and interested adoptive couples can sort of…push things one way or the other when it comes to determining who’s a fit or unfit parent, who deserves to raise their child.
Transracial adoption — particularly when the adoptive parents are white — isn’t at all something I’m opposed to, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common without having any attendant conversation about what this means. How are these kids going to be adequately prepared for the discrimination and hardship they’re going to face on the basis of their race? How can white parents really have conversations with their kids about dealing with the police or other racist institutions that generally favor white people?
And as transracial adoption becomes more common, are we making sure we’re not making judgments about non-white parents based on racial stereotypes? I don’t know if we are. That’s why ICWA exists, at least in part, because for so long Indian parents were presumed to be incompetent or neglectful until proven otherwise. Not to mention the long history the US government has of taking native kids and changing their names, cutting their hair, forcing them to learn English and to forget their own languages, and imposing Christian beliefs on them.
So the context of this case is really rough.
Right. And I think the response I got was particularly terrible because none of the people who were so up in arms even mentioned ICWA or its merits, just whether or not Dusten Brown was a bad person for having been initially willing to let the mother of his child raise Veronica. “Veronica should stay with the white people because they’ve had her longer.”
Which isn’t even true, at this point; Veronica had been living with her father for the last eighteen months before the state ruled in favor of the Capobiancos.
And sometimes it’s relevant, to look at who’s had custody longer, but not in this case. Here it wasn’t really all that important; the Capobiancos hadn’t followed the law.
There was a point a while back where Mrs. Capobianco had to give testimony, and she said: “Well, they [Dusten and the Cherokee Nation] obviously want to raise her. I couldn’t qualify that compared to the way I feel. I know how I feel. So — and it feels to me like we really want her more than anybody.”
Legally, siding with the Capobiancos is like saying “Go ahead and violate the law, just make sure you keep the kid for a really, really long time.”
That really is the crux of it, isn’t it?
Yeah, it is. So Dusten Brown has Veronica with him for about a year and a half before he’s ordered to return her to the Capobiancos. Now all of a sudden, the length of time he’s had custody of her doesn’t matter.
And now they’re suing him for half a million dollars.
And now they’re suing him. By the way — the way the media has characterized ICWA as it relates to this case has been insane. Like it’s a “loophole” or a “technicality.” But this is exactly the type of situation ICWA is supposed to prevent.
I have to say, my experience writing about this case, and the response that followed, was absolutely the worst. I didn’t write or pitch anything for weeks afterwards. Even when SCOTUS decided the case I purposely avoided pitching it. I didn’t want to write about it ever again.
Really?
It’s embarrassing to admit that, but it’s true. I’d never felt like really silenced like that before. I hope that doesn’t sound too cliché. I just thought, I can’t go through that again, I can’t have white people yelling at me like that again. That had never happened to me before or since.
How long did the fallout last?
At least a week. But I really laid low. I didn’t write anything for the rest of that month, for sure. One person told me that tribes shouldn’t get “special treatment” because we wouldn’t give special treatment to “book clubs” (whatever that means), which is so wacky because Indian tribes aren’t, like, cool special clubs. They’re sovereign nations. It’s slightly more important than a book club.
Another big theme was who really cared about Veronica’s “best interests.” That’s a legal standard–best interest of the child. My understanding of ICWA is that part of the “best interest” analysis necessarily includes the fact that it is in native children’s best interest to have regular access to their culture and heritage. Almost NO ONE got on board with me on that point–basically no one believed that that was a relevant consideration. Given the historical context (see above re: taking kids), this was very troubling to me.
Anything else about the case we haven’t addressed that you want to point out?
Okay, we didn’t talk too much about the case itself, but I wanted to just point out that Justice Alito wrote the majority decision. He kept bringing up the fact that Dusten Brown is only 1/256 Cherokee–this was a big criticism of my piece, also. People were actually arguing over blood quanta and whether Dusten was “Indian enough” to qualify. Which was not at issue in the case at all, and is also terribly offensive. Tribes are empowered to regulate their own memberships. Some tribes do employ a “blood quantum” requirement, but others don’t. The Cherokee Nation said Dusten Brown is Cherokee, and legally that’s the end of the story. So the fact that Alito would keep bringing it up is suspicious, and gross.
Well, I’m really really glad that you were willing to talk about it with us. Thanks for doing that.
Absolutely. Thanks for asking.
Tags: adoption, cherokee nation, dusten brown, icwa, meagan hatcher-mays, supreme court, transracial adoption, veronica rose brown
Oh man, the last bit about blood quanta… Maybe this is an over-reaction on my part, but no one is ever like, “Is this person white enough?” When it comes to non-white identities, however, all the questions arise.
By questioning Brown’s Cherokee-ness, it’s like that they are questioning the validity and weight of the Cherokee Nation’s opinion on it — that, clearly the Nation must be wrong when they said Brown was Cherokee.
This was a really informative interview. Thanks, Meagan and Mallory!
I hadn’t read much about this story because the idea of losing a child (either as an adoptive or biological parent) freaks me right the hell out, but this was a really good explanation of the situation. What I had read had focused a lot on the adoptive family as some sort of saviors and it had weirded me out, but I hadn’t been able to find much about the biological family.
I maybe wouldn’t feel total disgust towards the adoptive family had they not decided to then sue her dad despite their legal team working pro bono. “Took your kid, now gonna sue you for $500k. WE WIN WE WIN.”
That’s the part that to me, tips it into mustache-twirling villain territory. Taking a child from her biological father, who wants to raise her, who’s willing to raise her, who’s BEEN raising her for the last year and a half and then demanding 500,000 dollars from him…normally, when you take someone’s kid and then demand money, we call that kidnapping, not adoption.
To be fair, Baby Veronica had lived the adoptive family before she lived with the biological dad, who had signed away his rights to raise her before she was born. I understand the historical context of white/native adoptions, but they didn’t “take her.”
That’s actually a common misconception. Dusten Brown didn’t “sign away his rights,” and the conditions which under state law could have resulted in the nullification of his parental rights were superseded by ICWA. From the trial ruling:
“The court denied the Capobiancos’ petition to adopt the child, and ordered that the child be returned to Brown as the biological father. South Carolina law terminates a father’s parental rights if he did not provide pre-birth support and does not become involved with the child shortly after birth, but the court noted that ICWA preempts state law. On November 25, 2011, the court issued a ruling, holding that 1) ICWA applied and was not unconstitutional, 2) the “Existing Indian Family” exception was inapplicable in this case, 3) Brown did not consent to the termination of his parental rights or the adoption of his child, and 4) the Capobiancos had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Brown’s parental rights should be terminated. The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child.”
Wait so I’m confused. The text thing. Did he SAY he was going to give up his parental rights via text and then not legally do it, or did he say “I give up my parental rights” via text but that’s not a legal way to do it?
Here’s a good link to read up on the specifics of that aspect of the case: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/09….
”
Instead, she texted Brown asking him to sign his “rights” over to her. Initially, Brown said he was under the impression that she simply wanted full custody. At no time, he said, did she ever mention that she was thinking of giving their child up for adoption. He is adamant that had he known what her plans were, he would’ve acted on the spot.
“I thought she wanted full custody, but that I would still be a part of my child’s life,” he said. “I was going to war. I didn’t know what was going to happen in Iraq, or even if I was going to come back home alive. So I texted her back and said okay.”
HOLY SHIT.
Holy shit is about all I have for that too. I honestly don’t understand how this resolved in the adoptive family’s favor. (Or I do, but I keep clinging to this idea that cases can’t be won by privilege alone. Hahahahaha, oh, me.)
Well, in another comment, written before I read this, I was ignorant of this. I really feel this deserves more prominent coverage, as does Brown’s motivation.
From the Supreme Court opinion:
“Approximately four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. (This was the first notification that they had provided [**738] to Biological Father regarding the adoption proceeding.) Biological Father signed papers stating that he accepted service and that he was “not contesting the adoption.” App. 37. But Biological Father later testified that, at the time he signed the papers, he thought that he was relinquishing his rights to Birth Mother, not to Adoptive Couple.”
So he did sign a consent to the adoption, but he did not understand it and immediately contested it. This is after the text message to the mother, in which he relinquished his rights to the child (which was not in the context of the adoption.)
That’s true, but it also sounds like the adoption agency and/or the Capobiancos employed some deeply problematic tactics to make sure her father and his tribe were cut out of the initial adoption – misspelling his name on the paperwork, listing Veronica as only Hispanic, taking her to South Carolina where state laws are weaker on biological father’s rights…
Their adoption fudged the legal procedures that would have prevented Baby Veronica from being adopted to a non-Cherokee family (“accidentally” messing up her biological father’s name so he wasn’t immediately recognizable as Cherokee, etc.), so yes, they did sort of “take her.” It might not have been their fault, but they still pressed for custody when the mistake was revealed, and they had a significant amount of cultural and financial resources on their side.
Wow, I had not previously been aware that taking Native kids was so formalized and common here as well. I’m really glad ICWA exists for this reason; cultural genocide is a real thing and totally devastating.
And yes, the blood quantum thing is gross. My husband is indigenous Aussie but presents as white, so people love to ask him “how Aboriginal” he is, meaning what blood percentage, but even if he did know the answer, it’s an offensive and borderline nonsensical question (you either are Aboriginal or you aren’t).
I have to admit I’d read about this case from other sources and been like, “well clearly that dickbag doesn’t deserve this child that he just gave up” but as per usual humans are much more complex and there are so many shades of grey in this story. Now the adoptive parents totally lost my sympathy by suing the dude AFTER they got his daughter.
Yeah, it’s gross how systematic removing Indian kids from their families was in this country. Read up on the Carlisle Indian School if you’re interested.
I read MHM’s piece a few months back and then I read the decision when it came down, and I still don’t know what the right answer is in this case. It seems that a visitation/partial-custody agreement could have been worked out, but this case is one of the reasons why I don’t envy judges.
I don’t understand how it is in the best interests of the child to return her to her adopted parents. Her father has a family and whole community behind him to raise Baby Veronica, and he has had custody for 18 months. How is it better for her to uproot her from that and give her to the Capobiancos, who she probably doesn’t even remember at this point?
This is such a terrible situation, and it couldn’t be resolved without somebody being hurt.
It’s abominable that the adoptive parents are seeking legal fees – it’s such a “fuck you” to the father.
It’s especially chilling when you know that just a few weeks ago — before it was clear that they’d be granted custody — the Capobiancos were talking about the possibility of visitation with Dusten Brown, saying they wanted to resolve things “amicably,” and that he’d be a part of his daughter’s life. Then, as soon as they got what they wanted, lawsuit.
Kind of off topic, but has anyone read “The Inconvenient Indian” yet? http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/the-curious-his… Seems really interesting. This quote from that article seems so on-point w/r/t the Baby Veronica case too:
“White North Americans, he argues, prefer their Indians noble, primitive, and safely extinct, and actual, live Indians who stubbornly insist on their rights as an independent people they regard as at best a troublesome nuisance.”
Also couldn’t help but think about Louise Erdrich’s The Round House which also addresses white “adoption” of Native children. Super good book.
I thought “The Inconvenient Indian” was funny, intelligent and accessible. King admits it’s not a comprehensive history, but it really helped me to understand the situation that many Aboriginal Peoples are dealing with today (land claims, Idle No More, etc.) and its origin. I got so angry when I was reading it, and I couldn’t stop talking about it. I have probably told everyone I care about to read this book.
Awesome, thanks! It’s moved to the top of my reading list.
Thanks for reminding me that it’s been too long since I last read Louise Erdich.
No problem! The Round House was actually the first book of hers I read (I know, I know), but now I want to go into her back catalogue because of it.
I haven’t read this, but Paige Raibmon’s “Authentic Indians” https://www.dukeupress.edu/Authentic-Indians/?vie… is a fantastic, fantastic read.
Thanks for the recommendation. Added to my list!
Matika Wilbur’s photography project Project 562 has a similar bent, to show native people in modern present day settings. It’s amazing how many Americans think of Native people in the past tense, not realizing that they/we still live in the world, in cities and on the Rez.
http://matikawilbur.com/blog/
I think it’s worth considering the feminist community’s general response to this case and what that says about the dominant (white, middle/upper-middle class) perspectives in feminist discourse. I think society tells us to be suspicious of men who seek custody of children as not “really” wanting the child but having some ulterior motive, particularly men who are POC, and feminism has done a poor job of questioning the racist and sexist implications there. And the white savior thing obviously plays into that as well. But this to me is ultimately another example of the unexamined racism and classism within mainstream feminism right now.
This article is good supplemental reading: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08…
Oh also! Parenthood has an awesome episode from last season that addresses white parents talking to their nonwhite children about racism. Basically, white dad has to learn to shut the fuck up and acknowledge he simply cannot have this conversation with his son and that his black wife is the authority there.
That article is fantastic, and in general I’m agreeing with everyone here. But there iiiiiiiiiis this squicky line the author included saying “In an effort to get her to reconsider, he said, he refused to support her and said he wouldn’t pay child support, either.”
I read the case opinion and his words don’t even come off as manipulative as that line, so I’m more just confused as to why she wrote it that way. I doubt she wanted him to sound like he was using this pregnancy as leverage…
Thanks for writing this. I went and looked at the previous post and it’s really shirty that it devolved into all that crap in the comments. It’s like people were saying oh those people have a pool who cares if they have legal rights to the child. The only thing I’m unsure about are a couple of the statements on transracial adoptions. As far as I know this was a private adoption where the bio mom picked the couple which is how it usually works right? I think most people waiting to get an adoption of an infant are just happy to get chosen no matter what. Adoption from public agencies would be a different story perhaps.
The article I linked in my previous comment names the adoption agency, which is a evangelical Christian agency and apparently these groups engage in some shady tactics (the author mentions specifically agencies moving biological moms to states where they have very few parental rights).
So without knowing anything specific, I think it’s within the realm of possibility that the mother was encouraged to choose a family located in a state (like SC) where the biological father would have fewer opportunities for redress.
Oh that’s really gross
Mother Jones had an interesting article on the “savior” philosophy that informs foreign adoptions in some evangelical Christian groups.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/chris…
While this may be the minority of transracial adoptions, as a prospective foster parent and tribal member planning to adopt through ICWA, active in online adoption forums, etc, I see the bigger problem as the lack of adequate training and education of adoptive parents on issues surrounding transracial adoption – that you will ultimately raise a child whose experience of the world will be different than theirs, harder than theirs. Many adoptive parents, mostly white and middle class, express the attitude “we don’t see race, we’ll treat any child the same as our own, we don’t care if he’s brown, yellow or purple” (always purple, I don’t know why purple is the default). That’s a nice thought, but doesn’t adequately prepare them to raise a child of color.
How’d you get to ‘many’? I’m a white parent to a child of color, and I know a lot of white parents to children of color, and precisely 0 of those parents express a belief in a color blind world. I have literally never heard that in nearly 15 years raising my child. So maybe I just attract all the educated white people into my life.
However, it’s more likely that the intensive training for social workers since racial preferences in public adoption were basically outlawed (through funding mechanisms) may have had some effect on what they’re telling prospective adoptive parents.
One thing that has been largely left out of the discussion and that I would be fascinated to know is the biological mom’s thoughts on all this, as well as the potential implications for her in the future. She likely terminated her parental rights formally in the adoption, assuming, naturally, that the child would be entirely raised by the adoptive family. Now the child has had her life split, tossed back in forth in a really unfortunate and complicated situation. I can’t even imagine what she’s gone through in all this but it gives me All The Feelings just thinking about it.
Seriously. Where is she in all this?
I have similar questions. I feel like biological mom is really left out of the conversation. Here she is making the “responsible” choice (according to the Churchy Joes) and having the child and putting her up for adoption.
I guess I just wonder if there is a feminist reading of this where were are supplanting this woman’s right to choose what happens with her fetus (absent the father). As far as she knew, bio dad wanted nothing to do with baby. How many other women in that circumstance have been empowered to choose everything that happens from that moment on?
When I think of her, I get that sinking, powerless feeling… like no matter what she chooses, some other person (whether the dad, the adoptive parents, the state, or the nation) just went ahead and decided that she was wrong about how SHE handled HER OWN fetus.
It seems like we need to be careful, because Baby Veronica wasn’t a fetus anymore – she was birthed and was thus a baby, with a whole different set of legal and ethical principles in play. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the ICWA means that Veronica’s birth mother couldn’t have decided to abort her
But one parent does not have the absolute right to decide what happens with his/her child. In order to give up a child for adoption, both parents have to give up their parental rights. Maybe the birth mother hates the birth father and would prefer that Veronica would be adopted, but without the father’s consent, she can’t place Veronica up for adoption.
Are you thinking that she might have made a different choice had she known the birth father was interested in raising the baby? If that were the case, then I think she would have joined him in seeking to have the adoption invalidated.
I don’t think it’s the feminist view that the mother should have the sole authority to determine where her child is placed, I think it’s better where both parents have an interest in their child.
Oh damn I am so ashamed of myself right now. I didn’t know all the facts of the case and thought that the child had been living with the adoptive parents all along, that the dad had signed away his rights as a parent and then changed his mind without actually having custody. I thought that was kind of absurd, and of course the child should stay with the parents it knows, and you can’t just change your mind about being a parent.
I didn’t necessarily think the adoptive parents where completely right (I mean, the White Savior thing came to mind, and regret that the child might not know her heritage), but those were the facts of the case as I knew from news media, and it seemed to me better to leave the child with the adoptive parents. I had no idea she’d been living with her dad, or that a primary reason for him not to be available to parent her was that he was in the military, not because of being deadbeat. That’s a HUGE difference!
From what I can tell, having just tuned into this case recently, the media coverage has been ATROCIOUS. Like I listened to an old Radiolab podcast (from when it was about to go before the Supreme Court) and the clips from news shows were pretty disgusting, knowing the actual context of the case.
I am sympathetic to the Capobiancos’ original position, but horrified by their persistence and spite. I have siblings who were adopted from outside of the US. I cannot imagine having had them removed from us when they were babies. But my family is also, unfortunately, a good example of the ethical concerns Hatcher-Mays is discussing: frankly, my parents did a really shitty job of preparing my non-white siblings for life in a white, racist culture. They also did not try to give them much of an education about where they came from, or make sure that they access to that culture. They were those well-intentioned color-blind folks that to this day don’t grasp how difficult and different life was (and is) for their kids.
I am really appreciative of this coverage of this case, and the discussion of how white privilege is used abusively in cases like this. However, I think there’s a conflation between this particularly nasty case and the way these white adoptive parents have dealt with this situation and the larger situation of trans-racial adoption in this country right now generally. To say, “Transracial adoption is becoming more popular and in my opinion, it can sometimes be driven largely by white savior complexes” opens an enormous can of worms in what I think is a fairly unfair (ie un-nuanced and unhelpfully qualified) way. Lots of people who adopt are not doing it to “save” anyone. Many have gone through years of physically painful and emotionally gutting infertility treatments and/or pregnancy losses. Along with the discussion of racism and classism, it’s important to have an acknowledgment of that pain in the discussion of adoption as well.
My understanding–and if someone has more/contradicting information, please correct me!–is that, like older children, non-white children are more often available for adoption (because so many potential adoptive parents are hoping for “a newborn that looks like us”). Is it that more people are deliberately seeking out transracial adoptions, or that they are trying to adopt, and increasingly willing to consider a child of another race?
Yeah…but the people who have gone through years of fertility treatments? Those people have a disposable income. So, when they decide to adopt a baby they are in a very privileged position. But they might not be all THAT wealthy, and guess what? Black baby boys are the least expensive children to adopt. So they dig into their pockets, say “race doesn’t matter to me because I am not racist!” and adopt the baby. In many of these cases (not all, but many) the person who carried that child to term would have kept it if s/he had the means. So suddenly we have a system where very poor people are losing their children to wealthier people. Nobody needs to have bad intentions for the system to perpetuate inequality.
I’m not saying the system doesn’t have massive inequality–that mirrors the inequality of our society–present in it. I’m just saying that adoptive parents, rich or not, have often also experienced a lot of pain before coming to this decision, and it’s important to acknowledge that. Also, if you go through a reputable agency, there’s a flat fee for adoption, no matter the race.
But why does it need to be acknowledged? This strikes of “fairness bias,” the feeling that one must present two unequal positions as being somehow equal. In this case, that the sore hearts of the adoptive parents are as important to cover as the survival of the Cherokee nation. Should the would-be adoptive parents’s feelings be acknowledged? Sure, by their friends and family and community. It totally sucks to want to have a child and be unable to do so. But should a legal apparatus acknowledge those feelings, and consider them as relevant as the rights of a sovereign nation? I don’t think so.
I’m not talking about the adoptive parents in this specific case. See my objection above re: conflation of this case and discussion of it standing in for more nuanced discussion of trans-racial adoption more generally.
I understand, but I still think acknowledging the pain of would-be parents makes that pain seem equivalent to the pain of having to give up a child because of one’s financial circumstances. They are not the same. The pain of childlessness can be discussed on its own, but in the context of adoption such acknowledgement becomes a justification for an exploitative operation.
I do not agree. Acknowledgement does not mean the pain is the same, or equal. In the context of adoption, the discussion of the pain of childlessness just means a more nuanced and honest discussion, not a justification.
I am, really I am, sympathetic to people who want children. I think it’s great that other people are sympathetic to people who want children. But here’s the thing: the institution of adoption should not be driven by people who want but can’t have children.
Does that sound harsh? I suppose it might be, but I am going to say it again. The institution of adoption should not be driven by people who want but can’t have children. In my ideal world, providing people the resources to raise their own children should be prioritized, the feelings of would-be adoptive parents be damned. All of the poor, non-white, disabled and/or single riffraff out there would have the services they need to keep their children in healthy, happy homes. And for those people who have unwanted children, adoption will exist to place those children in other healthy, happy homes. In this wonderful world, “unwanted” will never be shorthand for “could not afford,” or “had no access to mental health services and so was deemed unfit.” Adoption serves a wonderful purpose, but we should not think that purpose is giving well-to-do baby-hungry couples the child they “deserve.”
Yes, I agree. We’re now making two different points, and I don’t think they conflict with each other at all. it’s possible both to strive for the ideal system of social priorities and adoption organization you advocate, AND to structure the discussion about our currently imperfect system in a way that allows for the feelings of adoptive or prospective adoptive parents.
I agree that by acknowledging an adoptive parent’s circumstances, we are not necessarily turning a blind eye to families affected adversely by racial and socioeconomic inequality. I do agree with starrykick that we are running the risk here of stigmatizing transracial adoption in all cases, without considering the legal rights and personal choices of both birthparents and adoptive parents who are participating in transracial adoption with the best of intentions and with mindfulness of the challenges transracial adoption presents.
I think when people are generally referring to the recent upsurge in transracial adoption, they’re referring to the recent upsurge in interracial adoption by Evangelical Christians, many of whom have biological children of their own.
This article covers it well, in my opinion: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/chris…
Thank you, I have been looking for precisely that article since reading this!
I gotta say that part of this interview really struck me as a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” attitude to transracial adoption. If a white couple adopts a white child, they’re racist and devalue the lives of children of color. If a white couple adopts a child of color, they’re white saviours (and cheap!). Really? “Driven largely” by white savior complexes? Are you interviewing the majority of these couples? You can acknowledge, as a commenter below does, that “nobody needs to have bad intensions for the system to perpetuate inequality.” You can also do so without completely dehumanizing and insulting the parties involved, whether the struggling biological parents or the desperate adoptive parents.
No one’s damning anyone; Meagan’s pointing out that transracial adoption can be a really complicated issue and that people don’t talk about those complexities nearly often enough, not dismissing all white adoptive parents as racists.
I agree that that is an interesting point to be discussed, as far as asking: who is encouraged to think that childlessness is tragic, and who is not?
I mean, it’s not to vilify individuals who have experienced pain, but to what extent is that narrative encouraged among certain populations that are deemed more fit to raise children? Every woman is not allowed to feel that way equally. While some women are sneered at and deemed irresponsible (that’s putting it mildly – there are people in power right now who literally pin most of society’s problems on women having children who “shouldn’t”) for wanting children, we give a suspiciously loud voice to other women who want them. Not to say that all women who seek to adopt are like this, but I’ve definitely read a number of sympathetically presented adoption stories in major publications that detail the pain of having everything one ever desired – except a child, and then basically having to put up with a few years worth of hassles, at which point they usually do end up with a child.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask why that one experience is so newsworthy, when so many other experiences are not given any outlet at all. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that having to struggle mightily to get something someone wants is most people’s reality, and many of them will never actually achieve that thing.
So yes, I very much agree that we should be talking more about the personal pain involved on all sides, and how we all are taught to conceive of what specific kind of pain we are encouraged, allowed, or forced to feel.
This case, and your writing about it, interests me greatly.
My sister (we’re both adopted) is part native, I think 1/8. She discovered this well after both our parents died, almost by accident. She and I were raised white. She now works for CPS in the State of Washington, and handles cases mostly concerning the children of the tribes in her area. She coordinates with representatives from the tribal councils, identifies herself as I describe above and appears to have good relations with them.
I fully support the position of the Cherokee Nation. Race is first and foremost a social construct, though it often makes use of biological building blocks.
I can imagine that some native people might feel some jealousy and resentment toward her situation, since she did not have to grow up with the load of social contingencies that a person raised as a native might. We were both told repeatedly that our respective mothers gave us up for adoption because they thought that would give us a better life. I don’t know that they knew this for a fact, but I think it’s a much better thing to have been told than “Your mother didn’t want you.” It also beats not being told that you’re adopted.
And by the way, my parents were unable to have children of their own, after my mother had an ectopic pregnancy. (It nearly killed both her and my father, as they had to take a twin engine airplane from St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Straight to Nome under severe weather conditions. One engine of the plane failed. This was in the early 50’s.) So I don’t really think of it as a “rescue adoption”. They wanted kids, she was available where they were at the time, which was Kodiak Island.
The upshot of this is that I don’t really accept that being raised by a native family, in and of itself, is either better or worse for the child. This is not, however, a repudiation of the ICWA. It’s the law of the land, and respect for the sovereignty of native nations is due.
I’ve read only this piece and the linked piece in Jezebel. From that, it seems a bit unfair to describe the Capobiancos as “breaking the law”. Nothing in what I’ve read says there was any intent on their part. They appear to have been unaware that Baby Veronica was native. It is Maldonado’s attorney that made out the paperwork.
I think a lot of the talk about “loophole” is due to the fact that we are given no clue to Brown’s motivation. He not only refused to pay child support, he abrogated all parental rights. In a text, no less, which is kind of “ugh” to me. What’s his story? Did he think he was being unserious? Why did he change his mind? Without understanding that, his actions seem capricious and arbitrary.
That said, the case is kind of a nightmare. I can fully endorse the idea that Alito’s opinion shows him to be clueless.
Re. your sister’s adoption: do you think your parents knew about her background when they adopted her, and do you know if the ICWA applies to Alaska Native Corporations? [if either question is offensive/nosy/offensively nosy, please ignore]
If you haven’t already, you should check out RadioLab’s piece on the case–Brown is interviewed, and talks about the circumstances around giving up his parental rights (which, obviously, may or may not be entirely honest).
I’m not the OP, just replying to say that ICWA does indeed apply to Alaska Native Corporations.
According to the court documents, she refused to see him or speak to him, hence the texting. Prior to that he had been pressuring her to marry and raise the child. After refusing any communication for a while, she texted him the choice of child support or relinquishing parental rights (I think has has stated elsewhere that he thought she meant granting her full custody). So it’s not that he refused to support her AND gave up his rights, he chose one of the options presented. He signed the papers believing he was granting her custody, and literally tried to rip the papers out of the process servers hands when, seconds later, he realized that was not the case. Not that this makes him father of the year or anything, but he’s hardly the deadbeat, running away from responsibility monster that the press and jezebel commentariat has made him out to be.
Gonna follow that up. Growing up, I used to daydream about how when I was an adult I would adopt my own international, interracial family. We had a copy of this sweet book by a nice white lady called _The Family that Nobody Wanted_. I loved that book. I loved her anecdotes and her smart, wonderful children. And then, what happened? I started actual stories from parents who had to give up their children, reading about cultural genocide, reading about how wealthy people would prefer to take and raise the children than provide biological parents the means to do so themselves, reading about native children being taken from their families because their parents are desperately poor. I do not want to participate in that system. Don’t get me wrong, I think adoption can be a wonderful thing! But not when it is coercive or the product of class or racial differences.
Respectfully, I can think of one clarification that I wish you had discussed further. I fully understand not wanting to wade into the depths of the response to your Jezebel article. However, I’m not sure you do a fair job of categorizing some of the prominent responses to your original article. The ones I see aren’t talking about white saviors or blood quanta but about Dusten Brown’s relinquishment (or failure to fully relinquish) his parental rights. You did a great job of talking about the ICWA and how its legal proceedings and standards differ from a United States court, but I don’t think you really delved into the trickiest part of this case: which legal system had jurisdiction in this case. Generally this is very straightforward: as the lower courts affirmed, “ICWA preempts state law in the termination of parental rights for Indian parents.” Most of the angry comments over at Jezebel are talking about how he terminated his rights and wanted “backsies” and how this would set bad precedent in other situations (like if the custodial parent marries someone of the same sex, wants to leave the country, etc). If South Carolina had jurisdiction, he DID meet the criteria for parental rights relinquishment; if the Nation had jurisdiction, he did NOT. I wish you had explained this a little further! I think doing so would have addressed a lot of the misconceptions in those comments, as well as highlight a little better why the Supreme Court’s ruling was so egregious and, in particular, why the media coverage of this trial was so inaccurate.
Also, from a legal nerd standpoint, I wonder where you do draw the line between the father’s rights as a member of the Cherokee Nation and the mother’s rights as a citizen of the United States. To be explicit: I am not interested in deciding whether Dusten Brown “counts” as a Cherokee, that’s for the Nation to decide and their answer was unequivocal. To revisit this sentence: “ICWA preempts state law in the termination of parental rights for Indian parents.” Would the jurisdiction have changed if it were the mother who was Cherokee and the father who was American? If a Cherokee parent wants the ICWA to be in charge of proceedings and the other, US citizen parent, wants the US Courts to be in charge of the proceedings, who wins out? I’m not trying to deny the context surrounding the creation of the ICWA, I’m just trying to suss out whether the ICWA infringes on the rights of non-Native parents.
Some of this might seem beside the point, since I know you’re mostly discussing the way this case was presented in the media. And dude, the Supreme Court was gross and racist in the way it cherry-picked its evaluative criteria. I guess I’m curious about how this would have gone if the Supreme Court had done their job properly, y’know?
“If South Carolina had jurisdiction, he DID meet the criteria for parental rights relinquishment; if the Nation had jurisdiction, he did NOT.”
Oh, that actually makes it a lot clearer thank you!
It seems to me (and I am not a legal nerd, though I am a nerd of many other varieties!) that, to anyone willing to take into account the incredibly complex issues of race and class that are complicating this case, this is pretty obviously not “backsies,” but instead more a question of who, in our society, is worthy of legal literacy, and what safeguards are (or aren’t) there to protect more vulnerable populations. My own biases and lack of legal knowledge are likely showing in this opinion, though.
Thank you, you made my point from above much more clearly. I want to know why bio dad’s claim AND the Capobioncio’s claims BOTH outweigh the decision made by the bio Mom in the first place. She believed the father had given up his rights and she made a choice based on that assumption… why was her assumption that he HAD given up his rights more wrong than his assumption that he hadn’t?
“why was her assumption that he HAD given up his rights more wrong than his assumption that he hadn’t?”
Because one was true and the other wasn’t? I don’t think I’m making the point you seem to think I am. A biological mom doesn’t get to unilaterally give up a child for adoption if the father still has parental rights, it doesn’t matter whether she thinks he gave them up. You can assume anything you want, that doesn’t give it legal weight. Under the ICWA, he had not relinquished his parental rights. In my second paragraph, I’m wondering what standing the biological mom would have had for having the case heard in Oklahoma courts. I said “if South Carolina had jurisdiction, he had relinquished his claims” – but they didn’t have jurisdiction. South Carolina is where the adoptive parents live, not the biological mother. In fact, if Oklahoma (where the biological mother has residence) had jurisdiction, Dusten Brown STILL wouldn’t have relinquished his parental rights, because that’s not the kind of thing you can give up with a text message in most states (South Carolina, apparently, being an exception).
Man, I give up. Every time I think I’ve got enough information on this case to settle on an opinion, I learn something new.
Best thing to do is to go to the primary source documents. All of the Supreme Court briefs, oral argument transcripts and decisions are available online (SCOTUSblog is the best resources here).
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion is here:
http://www.attorneyroberthill.com/Case-Results/HI…
I generally settle on about four opinions while reading/listening to something new about this case and then just throw up my hands.
After reading the author’s comments on transracial adoption, and reading the reactions in the comments, I feel as if we might be treading into territory in which we categorize all non-white birthmothers as victims who are having an opportunity to raise a child taken from them, and all white adoptive parents as either naive “saviors” or privileged “takers”. Please be aware that there are many, many birthmothers who are using their own agency and decision-making skills when they opt to carry their child to term and put that child up for adoption, and many have very good reasons for wanting to both carry their child and not parent that child. And in cases of private newborn domestic adoption, these birthmothers choose the adoptive family after viewing profiles of various families. The adoptive parents are not always “saviors” or “collectors”, but are simply adults who wish to parent, but cannot do so biologically. Their choice to adopt is not necessarily about dissolving cultural ties or feeling charitable; it is often about building a family in the only way they can. I think we need to be careful not to label birthmothers as victims and adoptive parents as oppressors, when in many cases both parties are exercising their legal rights and doing what is best for them, their families, and for the child in question.
I do agree that white adoptive parents need to be mindful of the challenges their non-white children will face, and do their best to teach their children about their cultural heritage, our country’s history of racism and current struggles with racism, and these parents should probably consult appropriate organizations and/or resources when doing so. In fact, many adoptive families do parent mindfully, in this way.
I am not saying that the system is equitable, racially. I know that it is far from it. But I also think that we are dishonoring birthmothers by casting them as helpless and victimized.
Thank you.
I highly recommend that everyone who’s interested in adoption read The Child Catchers by Kathyrn Joyce. (http://kathrynjoyce.com/) The adoption market (yes, it’s a market, subject to forces of supply and demand, just like anything else) is… well, let’s go with “under-regulated.” There are more words I could use, but need to get back to work.
It is a market, and Joyce’s amazing work exposes some shocking and ugly truths that are more pervasive than most people know. But I hope that the conversations that grow from the Baby Veronica case do not perpetuate a stigma in which we vilify adoptive parents or treat all birthparents as victims. As a woman who will not be able to parent unless she adopts, I have done a tremendous amount of research into the process, and I know that, in many ways, I will have to do my best to keep my morals and my wits about me despite a flawed and sometimes unethical system. I hope that there are enough adoptive parents out there who are respectful of the state-by-state (and in this case, nation and heritage driven) rights afforded to birthparents, will work with agencies who do not “price” children according to race, and who will be respectful of the profound challenges of transracial adoption. There will always be those who adopt, and those who are adopted, and educated conversation around the complexities of transracial adoption will hopefully lead to more mindful actions by adoptive parents, and more empowerment of birthparents, as that’s the only way the system can change.
I think Joyce is actually pretty clear on the fact that most adoptive parents are good people who think they’re doing the right thing. It’s the agencies and the leaders of the evangelical adoption movement and, in some cases, the people running orphanages that are engaging in some, let’s just say, really troublingly unethical shit.
I mean, if it’s not about you… it’s not about you.
Oh, I apologize. I actually misread the flow of comments, and thought your original comment was in response to my comment just above yours, about individual adoptive parents and birthparents, which is why I got a bit defensive!
You’re absolutely right about Joyce’s work and the unethical practices she exposes…thank you for linking people to an important resource.
No worries. Friday afternoon, etc.
I think one of the most important takeaways from the book is how effing hard it is for people who want to adopt ethically to do so; the system — especially the international system — is so incredibly opaque and corrupt. Even people who are aware of the corruption have a hard time knowing if the kids they are adopting are actually orphans. I mean, any reasonable person would think that a kid up for adoption is an orphan, right, and yet in many cases, they are not! The mind boggles.
Yeah, the theme around evangelicals with the prayerful desire to save children is well developed, but what she did brilliantly is to expose the larger problem in adoption: That often, as in my own adoption 14 years ago, people who want to be parents THINK we’re doing the right thing by adopting a child who needs a family…when in truth the child may have a family already.
“Indian tribes aren’t, like, cool special clubs. They’re sovereign nations. It’s slightly more important than a book club.” THANK YOU. I hate how often this is overlooked– Tobold Rollo wrote a great piece addressing this in January, which you can read here.
Also re: the value of culture and heritage, interested folks should look up Chandler & Lalonde’s theory of cultural continuity, which makes a strong argument for the link between cultural continuity and suicide prevention. Culture is important, even if a majority of people pretend that it is just something you think about during hoildays or when writing Anthropologie marketing plans.
My wife and I are a mixed-raced couple. She’s Hispanic, primarily of Mexican decent, and I’m a white woman. We’re raising her nephew together, and because he shares his race and ethnicity with his aunt and we live in a heavily Hispanic area, I think (or hope, I guess) he’s connected to his heritage.
I bring all of this up because my wife and I want to become foster parents, to the point that we’ve talked it over with a social worker we know. One of the first questions she (seemingly reluctantly, maybe?) asked us was if we’d be “willing” to foster a black child — specifically, a black boy. Our answer was something along the lines of, “Jesus Christ, of course!” because, I mean, Jesus Christ, of course. What sort of monster turns down a child in need because of his race?
But it isn’t that simple. If we were to raise a black boy, even if it were only for a few years of his childhood, it would be from the position of two outsiders. We both know that. Could we — a Hispanic woman and a white woman — teach him how to handle himself as a black man? My wife can teach him the social codes all racial minorities come to understand when they live in the U.S., but what about the very specific “rules” black teenage boys need to know?
The fact is that when our names are thrown into the foster parent hat, someone at some agency will pull it out and match it to the first available child — and in my county, chances are that child will be black. We already know how the system DOES handle that situation: by not acknowledging race, by being happy that someone, anyone, will help to put a dent in the foster care system. And in many ways, I think that’s good. I think adults with the desire and talent to help care for children should do so, regardless of race or anything else. But how SHOULD the system handle that situation? That’s the question this interview is asking, and I think it’s a fair one.
“..his initial “disinterest” was at least due in part to the fact that he was overseas, serving in the National Guard.”
OK so this sentence like, completely changed my opinion of the father, and I feel like would have been pretty important to mention in your Jez piece. Because the Jez piece made it sound like he was POS who wanted nothing to do with her, until he did. And I was like, “Sure, she shold be with her tribe if possible, but maybe with another member of his family, and not in his full custody, cuz he sounds like a dick.”
Wow I am the person who passed along the link to the National Coalition For Child Protection Reform’s blog . Thanks so much for starting this discussion, it is such an important one to have. This specific case is a complicated one, but the broader issue that it speaks to is that so often we (and by we, I mean that like me, probably many people here are white/well off enough to have the time and internet access to browse this blog regularly) see a child left at home alone or living in a ‘dirty’ home and our instinct is to take them away and ‘save’ them instead of doing the hard un-romantic work to help assist that family with child care, or rides to school or even just with help cleaning the house.
This is also important because children who are taken away often do not end up being adopted by loving families- they stay in the foster system which can be incredibly abusive (even though there are many good people in it struggling to do the right thing as the commenter above demonstrates) . The website and blog are not being updated currently but they both give a pretty thorough history and documentation of past cases and an examination of foster systems in different states.
I just wish I’d read your first article when you’d written it. Because. Seriously. I’ve got your back. Slam dunk.
I agree that that is an interesting point to be discussed, as far as asking: who is encouraged to think that childlessness is tragic, and who is not?
I mean, it's not to vilify individuals who have experienced pain, but to what extent is that narrative encouraged among certain populations that are deemed more fit to raise children? Every woman is not allowed to feel that way equally. While some women are sneered at and deemed irresponsible (that's putting it mildly – there are people in power right now who literally pin most of society's problems on women having children who "shouldn't") for wanting children, we give a suspiciously loud voice to other women who want them. Not to say that all women who seek to adopt are like this, but I've definitely read a number of sympathetically presented adoption stories in major publications that detail the pain of having everything one ever desired – except a child, and then basically having to put up with a few years worth of hassles, at which point they usually do end up with a child.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why that one experience is so newsworthy, when so many other experiences are not given any outlet at all. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that having to struggle mightily to get something someone wants is most people's reality, and many of them will never actually achieve that thing.
So yes, I very much agree that we should be talking more about the personal pain involved on all sides, and how we all are taught to conceive of what specific kind of pain we are encouraged, allowed, or forced to feel.