 |
| Baby Veronica with her father Dusten Brown |
Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham on Human Rights and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham have posted a very compelling and powerful paper about the Supreme Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. It is required reading for anyone interested in the case, and is destined to be the definitive paper on the international human rights aspects of the case.
The article is titled Human Rights to Culture, Family, and Self-Determination: The Case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Here is the abstract:
The well-being of indigenous children is a subject of major concern for indigenous peoples and human rights advocates alike. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not prevent the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Indian couple. This occurred over the objections of her Cherokee biological father, extended family, and Tribal Nation. After the decision, Baby Girl’s father and the adoptive couple contested the matter in a number of proceedings, none of which considered the child’s best interests as an Indian child. The tribally-appointed attorney for Baby Girl, as well as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and National Congress for American Indians, began examining additional venues for advocacy. Believing that the human rights of Baby Girl, much like those of other similarly situated indigenous children, were being violated in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, and other instruments of international law, they asked us to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples Rights (“UNSR”). We prepared a “statement of information” to alert the UNSR of the human rights violations occurring in the case. With the permission of the attorneys and organizations involved, this chapter introduces the Baby Girl case, contextualizes the claims in international human rights law, and then reproduces the statement of information, and portions of the UNSR’s subsequent public statement. It concludes with an update on the Baby Girl case and broader discussion about the potential for using international law and legal forums to protect the human rights of indigenous children.
If anyone wishes to read this paper, I have the pdf. Email me: tracedemeyer@yahoo.com
Does this mean that there is reason to hope that the Capos 'adoption' of Veronica could be overturned and that she could be returned to her REAL father, Dusten Brown? I know there would be a huge uproar that Veronica has already been moved too many times and that she should just stay put until she is eighteen, but to me, she will always belong with her natural father and his (their) extended family no matter what has already happened.
ReplyDeleteThere are two scenarios that could happen: The UN is aware that the United States is in major violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and that in this one case, Veronica was denied a best interests hearing - which also means the feds could get involved (if there is major public outcry and not just tribes but Americans who voice their concerns about ICWA and this case and the way it was handled.) The second is Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency is investigated for trafficking and playing with people's lives - including Dusten Brown and Veronica his daughter. This paper highlights the UN Charter of Indigenous Peoples Rights - and this case of Baby Veronica is clearly in violation of this.
DeleteTo be clear, I am not a lawyer. This is my opinion.
You know I will never give up hope of Veronica returning to her rightful family and life. I will grasp at any straw that comes along. I appreciate you giving your opinion.
ReplyDelete